Your narrative would hold if it weren’t flawed; it’s an oversimplification. Let’s take your perspective where Hamas is the bees that stung Israel, and now Israel is retaliating against the land harboring the bee nest. (I use ‘bees’ here to distinguish from my earlier wasp analogy).
If your neighbor disliked the bees as much as you and agreed the nest was a problem, then certainly, destroying it with care to avoid collateral damage would be wise. However, the situation changes if your neighbor is a beekeeper who shields the bees in his home to protect them from you. If those bees become aggressive and harm your family, naturally, you’d first request the neighbor to remove the bees. Should they refuse, you’d have every right to seek external help. But what if the authorities do little, leaving you to suffer the stings while your neighbor faces minimal consequences? Rather than passively endure this, you might feel compelled to act independently to prevent future stings and deter the beekeeper from maintaining this threat.
Okay, then let’s hypothetically say Israel forms a terrorist organization that doesn’t overlap with the Israeli government itself, would they then have the right to attack Gaza? This organization would essentially be in the same position relative to Israel as Hamas is to the Palestinians.
The way you debate reminds me of someone who might have abandoned their education prematurely. Are you going to complain to the teacher because you cannot acknowledge that your reasoning is flawed, incomplete, and biased? Your approach to this discussion is quite frankly, absurd.
Your narrative would hold if it weren’t flawed; it’s an oversimplification. Let’s take your perspective where Hamas is the bees that stung Israel, and now Israel is retaliating against the land harboring the bee nest. (I use ‘bees’ here to distinguish from my earlier wasp analogy).
If your neighbor disliked the bees as much as you and agreed the nest was a problem, then certainly, destroying it with care to avoid collateral damage would be wise. However, the situation changes if your neighbor is a beekeeper who shields the bees in his home to protect them from you. If those bees become aggressive and harm your family, naturally, you’d first request the neighbor to remove the bees. Should they refuse, you’d have every right to seek external help. But what if the authorities do little, leaving you to suffer the stings while your neighbor faces minimal consequences? Rather than passively endure this, you might feel compelled to act independently to prevent future stings and deter the beekeeper from maintaining this threat.
Bullshit.
No government nor military should not get a carte blanche for murdering innocent civilians in the process of fighting a terrorist organization.
If you can’t figure that one out on your own, I’m not debating with you.
Okay, then let’s hypothetically say Israel forms a terrorist organization that doesn’t overlap with the Israeli government itself, would they then have the right to attack Gaza? This organization would essentially be in the same position relative to Israel as Hamas is to the Palestinians.
The way you debate reminds me of someone who might have abandoned their education prematurely. Are you going to complain to the teacher because you cannot acknowledge that your reasoning is flawed, incomplete, and biased? Your approach to this discussion is quite frankly, absurd.