[tpm]

At this point deflecting to Hamas is pretty poor and worn out strategy, I think Israeli propaganda should pivot to something else, like [0]. Anyway for the sake of clarity:

> If there are militants near a piece of civilian infrastructure

1) Of course we would have to believe the attackers it's the case. But we can't believe them, can we? I could search for facts supporing my view, but these are not isolated incidents, it's a sustained campaign.

2) There seem to be militants everywhere, according to the total devastation: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jan/18/a-visual-guide...

3) You still should not destroy the civilian infrastructure. I mean it's not that hard to understand: you should not kill civilians. Most people do understand that. Israeli army certainly understands that, it just chose to kill civilians and destroy their infrastructure.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes

[incrudible]

> But we can't believe them, can we?

I have no trouble believing that there are militants using every piece of available civilian infrastructure so that people like you get to shout "war crime" whenever the IDF calls them on their tactic. This is the only effective weapon that Hamas has.

Without ascribing further motivations, I don't see a difference to what's happening in Gaza and to what happened in Raqqa. If the motivation of Netanyahu is to "depopulate" Gaza, one must also ask why Hamas is doing everything to allow this to continue.

There is no question that civilians will die if they're caught up in urban warfare. Israel issues evacuation orders and designates zones where strikes are rare exceptions, with the knowledge that the enemy will take full advantage of this. If you're gonna set a standard beyond that, who can be expected to follow it?

[tpm]

I'm sorry you feel the need to defend mass murdering of civilians, but I can't help you.

[incrudible]

You're in the easy position where nothing you have to decide is of any consequence. How would you have Israel deal with the situation? How would you have the coalition deal with ISIS? Disengage and leave the turf to the militants? Then say so and own it, with all the consequences.

[tpm]

Yes, I'm in the easy position of not perpetrating a genocide. I got into the position by not perpetrating a genocide. It's a good position to be in, I can recommend it to everyone. Whole humanity will be better off when everybody is in my position.

I would have Israel deal with the situation by, I think you can guess by now. And I'm pretty sure if Israel had a better leader, it would be in a better position too. But it is what it is, the trauma caused by pogroms and the holocaust is now propagated further upon the Palestinians and will cause much suffering now and in the future. And then the Israelis can look back and see clearly they chose the wrong leaders and the wrong way to deal with the situation, and it can't be undone now.

[incrudible]

If I knew what you would have Israel do, I would not have to ask. Why avoid putting into words what you evidently feel so strongly about?

[tpm]

It's in the first two sentences of the previous post, I just didn't feel the need to repeat it for the third time.

Moreover, I would withdraw from the occupied territories and respect Palestinian statehood both de iure and de facto, not as a consequence of the Hamas attack, but well before that. In other words, implement the two-state solution. This makes lasting peace possible.

Of course Israel is doing and will be doing the exact opposite of that, because they want the whole Palestinian territory for themselves, so there will be no peace until they achieve that. And possibly not even then, because expansive nationalism knows no bounds and always fights for enlarging the lebensraum.