I am not asking about Hamas. I am asking about YOU.
Would it be acceptable to YOU to kill countless neighbours and many members of your own family in an explosion because the IDF has determined that a Hamas tunnel runs under your house? Would it be acceptable to YOU personally to take your family out of the zones to a Safe Zone and get killed there anyway? Is there anything on this earth that is worth your daughter being blown to pieces and you having to carry the remains of her limbs in a plastic bag? Because that actually happened to one man.
You’re asking like seven different questions. It bothers me very much that Hamas started a war from a military base it built under that man’s home and as a result the man’s daughter got killed. I’m sure the man had no idea. I mean it’s a city of 18 square miles with 800 tunnel shafts and millions of cubic yards of dirt having to be removed, dug with heavy equipment, tunnel shafts inside all kinds of public schools and apartment buildings and so forth. If it were me personally, I would have sent out a massive emergency broadcast warning people to get out before I destroyed the tunnels, and probably saying that I was coming for Hamas and anyone with them.
I suppose that man picking up his daughter’s body parts is exactly what Hamas wanted to happen so, it could continue pretending to be a victims engaged in self defense, rather than terrorists who put the lives of everyone around them at risk. This is a war. All war is awful. Sonetines war is just, awfulness included, in light of the much, much larger humanitarian picture.
My views on this subject in general reflect greater concern for the lives of tens of millions of people than the lives of mere tens of thousands. One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic, yet the latter must guide our policy.
I think they are all one question but I can rephrase it into a single one. Could you please answer it?
Is it acceptable to YOU as a human being to have YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY KILLED because the IDF says Hamas terrorists are under your house? Is this an acceptable trade off for you?
It’s a yes or no question, no need for long essays.
False dichotomy aside, I’ll humor you for the sake of the Socratic argument and hope that you arrive at a fair point: No it would obviously be unacceptable to me.
It’s not acceptable. Nobody would choose this, certainly not me. I didn’t put the family there, didn’t drop the bomb, didn’t build the tunnels under their house, didn’t refuse to evacuate. I also suspect that the man, sticking around in Gaza City, knew what he signed himself and his daughter up for. How could they not?
But I understand the choices western policymakers have to make, and the guy and his daughter are just not a significant factor in the decision tree. 25,000 guys and daughters like that are not significant factors in the decision tree.
The decision tree rather involves tens of millions of people, including that guy and his daughter.
I would agree with you if Israel had not bombed areas it deemed ‘Safe Zones’ several times killing twice and thrice displaced Palestinians who are shocked, starving, dehydrated, and incapable of getting medical treatment or even fuel for their car to leave.
The argument of the safe zones or Gaza city all falls apart once you read the facts.
You seem like a smart person. How do you feel about the IDF bombing areas they told people to move to? And how do you feel about the IDF forcing people to evacuate areas in which the refugee camps are already full, meaning there would never be enough space or food for them?
As I understand, less than 100 civilians were killed in strikes on refugee camps and on humanitarian corridors. War is hectic and so was the evacuation. This is again one of the examples of something tragic that happened once or twice, and people reporting on it as of it was the only thing happening.
If there were indiscriminate bombings on such locations, that would be evidence of war crimes. They seem very discriminate to me. IDF claims in one such attack, they got 40 Hamas members or something having a meeting in a mosque, of course they barred the doors and had a bunch of women and children in there with them to be used as human shields. Their deaths therefore are on Hamas, they locked them in there because they knew what could happen and they get sympathy when they do, instead of being held responsible for all the innocent lives.
Hamas put those people in harm’s way. They were told to get out of Gaza City.
I am not asking about Hamas. I am asking about YOU.
Would it be acceptable to YOU to kill countless neighbours and many members of your own family in an explosion because the IDF has determined that a Hamas tunnel runs under your house? Would it be acceptable to YOU personally to take your family out of the zones to a Safe Zone and get killed there anyway? Is there anything on this earth that is worth your daughter being blown to pieces and you having to carry the remains of her limbs in a plastic bag? Because that actually happened to one man.
Please answer.
You’re asking like seven different questions. It bothers me very much that Hamas started a war from a military base it built under that man’s home and as a result the man’s daughter got killed. I’m sure the man had no idea. I mean it’s a city of 18 square miles with 800 tunnel shafts and millions of cubic yards of dirt having to be removed, dug with heavy equipment, tunnel shafts inside all kinds of public schools and apartment buildings and so forth. If it were me personally, I would have sent out a massive emergency broadcast warning people to get out before I destroyed the tunnels, and probably saying that I was coming for Hamas and anyone with them.
I suppose that man picking up his daughter’s body parts is exactly what Hamas wanted to happen so, it could continue pretending to be a victims engaged in self defense, rather than terrorists who put the lives of everyone around them at risk. This is a war. All war is awful. Sonetines war is just, awfulness included, in light of the much, much larger humanitarian picture.
My views on this subject in general reflect greater concern for the lives of tens of millions of people than the lives of mere tens of thousands. One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic, yet the latter must guide our policy.
I think they are all one question but I can rephrase it into a single one. Could you please answer it?
Is it acceptable to YOU as a human being to have YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY KILLED because the IDF says Hamas terrorists are under your house? Is this an acceptable trade off for you?
It’s a yes or no question, no need for long essays.
Thanks.
False dichotomy aside, I’ll humor you for the sake of the Socratic argument and hope that you arrive at a fair point: No it would obviously be unacceptable to me.
The lack of a false dichotomy aside,
Thanks for answering, so now why would it make it acceptable for Palestinians?
It’s not acceptable. Nobody would choose this, certainly not me. I didn’t put the family there, didn’t drop the bomb, didn’t build the tunnels under their house, didn’t refuse to evacuate. I also suspect that the man, sticking around in Gaza City, knew what he signed himself and his daughter up for. How could they not?
But I understand the choices western policymakers have to make, and the guy and his daughter are just not a significant factor in the decision tree. 25,000 guys and daughters like that are not significant factors in the decision tree.
The decision tree rather involves tens of millions of people, including that guy and his daughter.
I would agree with you if Israel had not bombed areas it deemed ‘Safe Zones’ several times killing twice and thrice displaced Palestinians who are shocked, starving, dehydrated, and incapable of getting medical treatment or even fuel for their car to leave.
The argument of the safe zones or Gaza city all falls apart once you read the facts.
You seem like a smart person. How do you feel about the IDF bombing areas they told people to move to? And how do you feel about the IDF forcing people to evacuate areas in which the refugee camps are already full, meaning there would never be enough space or food for them?
As I understand, less than 100 civilians were killed in strikes on refugee camps and on humanitarian corridors. War is hectic and so was the evacuation. This is again one of the examples of something tragic that happened once or twice, and people reporting on it as of it was the only thing happening.
If there were indiscriminate bombings on such locations, that would be evidence of war crimes. They seem very discriminate to me. IDF claims in one such attack, they got 40 Hamas members or something having a meeting in a mosque, of course they barred the doors and had a bunch of women and children in there with them to be used as human shields. Their deaths therefore are on Hamas, they locked them in there because they knew what could happen and they get sympathy when they do, instead of being held responsible for all the innocent lives.
the harm came from Israeli weapons