Israeli air strikes on a so-called “humanitarian zone” in southern Gaza’s al-Mawasi killed at least 40 people on Tuesday, according to health authorities in the enclave.
The strikes targeted at least 20 tents sheltering displaced Palestinians in the coastal area near the city of Khan Younis.
Eyewitnesses told AFP that at least five rockets fell in the area, with emergency services saying the strikes created craters up to nine metres deep.
Weird conclusion, speaking for yourself?
In my opinion way more productive than silly hypotheticals (and how poor arguments should be responded to, in kind)
Man it would be great if someone (anyone) could disprove what I’m posting, instead of throwing accusations of genocide or… Memeing…
Edit: lol at the insistence of hypotheticals being some “gotcha.”
“poor argument”, i.e., a point you didn’t like and didn’t have the courage to respond to.
Sure, if you’d like to actually engage I’d be happy to walk you through what everyone’s problem with how the IDF is operating.
We expect Israel to treat the life of every Palestinian civilian the same way they would treat an Israeli civilian.
It’s that simple.
Hamas is the bad guy, they’re bad because they kill innocent people to achieve their objectives.
For Israel to be the good guy, they need to not kill innocent people to achieve their objectives. They can’t say ‘we had no choice, Hamas forced us to kill those civilians or we wouldn’t be able to achieve our objectives’.
And you disproved what I posted… Where? Because I’m trusting this wasn’t just a springboard to talk about the IDF when I’m discussing what Hamas is doing right?
Because that’d be whataboutism…
Maybe try addressing what I wrote, not what you want to engage in, which for you is discussing the IDF and not Hamas.
This is the title of the article we are discussing:
Your comment was copy-pasted detailing how Hamas used civilians as shields forntheir operations
Is that not whataboutism? Sounds like I’m just getting the topic back on track after your attempt to derail it.
I directly quoted the article indicating relevance. Not whataboutism at all.