- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
Family members of Israelis held hostage in the Gaza Strip have stormed a parliamentary meeting in Jerusalem to demand that Israel’s government does more to return their loved ones, as fighting in Khan Younis reached unprecedented levels.
About 20 relatives of people seized as captives by the Palestinian militant group in the 7 October attack disrupted a Knesset finance committee meeting on Monday, chanting: “Release them now, now, now!”
One woman, who has three family members taken by Hamas, cried: “Just one I’d like to get back alive, one out of three.” Other protesters held up signs reading: “You will not sit here while they die there.”
On Sunday, the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, rejected new Hamas conditions for ending the war and releasing the hostages including the Islamist group retaining control of Gaza and Israel withdrawing completely. In response, a Hamas official in Qatar said Netanyahu’s refusal to end the military offensive in Gaza meant there was “no chance for the return of the captives”.
I agree human shields could be used to cover up war crimes.
On the other hand, possibly does not equal probability.
Which do you find more credible?
Every single time something explodes, there’s Hamas to say “no members of Hamas, no weapons, and no tunnels were present at the location. Everyone killed was an innocent civilian.” Obviously you must agree: that cannot possibly be true every single time. Because of that, I don’t give much credibility to Hamas’s self-serving statements about who was killed and who was not.
Israel’s explanations are at least plausible.
I really wish you would stop saying such illogical things.
There being X number of Hamas members (which I never denied and I doubt anyone here did) doesn’t justify killing tens of civilians. You seem to think Palestinian life is worthless.
I actually believe that every life is important and equal, that every death diminishes us all. I just disagree that there is any moral obligation to not engage a valid military target when:
A. The civilians present are there as part of the enemy’s formal strategy of using human shields; and
B. There is a reasonable warning.
You show me where the dead civilians were not either voluntary or involuntary human shields, where there was no warning, and where there was no valid military target, and I’ll join you in calling it a war crime.
Whenever someone has tried, with literally thirty seconds of research the key details of what they’ve claimed falls apart. Mostly, there have been warnings before every bombing.
Not sure about those tank shells today at the training center. As I said, if not, I’ll call it a war crime right there with you. War is awful and every war kills innocent people. I also believe a little war with Hamas is better than a massive war with Iran, which is where we will end up if the civilized world just lets Hamas and similar ideologies start having their own countries as a reward for making effective use of human shields.
Can you really say my logic is flawed? Seems nonfalacious and straightforward. I can see how it sounds calous, but that’s emotion, not logic.