That’s not really an answer though - obviously there’s a question of degree.
If there were 20,000 terrorists with access to advanced weaponry then a few hundred civilian casualties is probably acceptable. If there’s 100 terrorists with access to some home made rockets then a few thousand civilian casualties probably isn’t acceptable.
Is the present campaign against Gaza with the mode of engagement by Israel really the surest path to peace with the least civilian casualties? Hard to believe given that there was a stale mate just a few weeks ago.
Besides which, you can’t kill all the terrorists, that’s not how extremism works.
That’s not really an answer though - obviously there’s a question of degree.
If there were 20,000 terrorists with access to advanced weaponry then a few hundred civilian casualties is probably acceptable. If there’s 100 terrorists with access to some home made rockets then a few thousand civilian casualties probably isn’t acceptable.
Is the present campaign against Gaza with the mode of engagement by Israel really the surest path to peace with the least civilian casualties? Hard to believe given that there was a stale mate just a few weeks ago.
Besides which, you can’t kill all the terrorists, that’s not how extremism works.
Of course it’s an answer.
Ok, well it doesn’t address the question, at all.
Of course it does. Fighting terrorism gives the perception of moral high ground
Israel is creating a humanitarian crisis. If you’re getting the perception of moral high ground I don’t really know what to say to you.