|
|
|
|
|
by YZF
430 days ago
|
|
The IDF is not "massacring civilians by the tens of thousands". You could argue the IDF is very loose with its targeting and is willing to go after military targets even if many civilians get hurt. The Hamas was significantly looser with their targeting with 10's of thousands of rockets fired randomly into population centers. The situation is completely different. One action is a defensive response and the other was an offensive initiative. There is no reality in which the Hamas attack can be framed as defensive or justifiable by any western values. The IDF response however is very much in line with what western nations have actually done, e.g. the US response to 9/11, the response to ISIS, WW-II or any other war you can think of. The US went to the other side of the world to get the people it thought wanted to harm it. There wasn't even any real threat to its territory or people. It was simply about deterrence and getting even and it was significantly more heavy handed. Similarly other western powers that went after ISIS. Israel to contrast is facing an existential threat and parts of the country are/were unlivable because of the threat of attacks. It has no option other than the complete removal of Hamas from Gaza (and Hezbollah from Southern Lebanon which has largely been accomplished). |
|
There's nothing defensive about embarking on a self-described colonial endeavour.