I have always said "it doesn't matter" because per international law, attacking human shields, is a war crime. So "passing the human shield test" makes no difference.
Why are you so emphatic on getting people to say that this is an Israeli war crime and that is an Israeli war crime.
Go back 300 pages when I was supporting military action by Israel. I called Israel a racist, oppressive and apartheid state. I have always called Israel racist, oppressive and apartheid state even before October 7. Go to the old "anti-Zionism is anti-semitism thread, if I am right, and I called Israel a racist, oppressive and apartheid state. Only now, I have more information about the kind of state it is, and you do as well. So an anti-Israel position, is infact the right moral position.
You have. Which is why it was easy to tell early on that you were anti-Israel/anti-Semitic right from the get-go. You were never neutral. It was a facade.
I heard him say that Israel is an occupying state, and that it is in an offensive position, and therefore does not have a right to self-defense. I do not remember reading where he called Israelis "defenders". Quote him. If not this will be Example #3 of your lying and gaslighting.
It was a one-time thing. I forget what the discussion was about, but when he brought it up he referred to the Israelis as defenders. My reply was, that proves that Hamas are the aggressors.
The Israelis do not require such considerations. They are safe. October 7, wouldn't have happened if 2 things had happened: a) The larger issue had been addressed regarding Palestinian freedoms. b) Israel's security forces had not failed.
There you go once again blaming Israel for everything. It's like Hamas had no other option than to kill the 1,200-1,400 civilians. You are justifying and thereby endorsing their actions. Israel had been obeying the ceasefire that was already in place. And you are saying that it was OK for Hamas to break it.
You can condemn terrorism and condemn Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people. Those are both compatible arguments and are not justifications for each other.
Yes you can condemn two separate things.
But when you condemn something you are saying that there is no justification for it. There are no buts. It's an absolute. You can't say you condemn Oct. 7 and in the same breath talk about oppression etc. That is double speak.
From Merriam Webster:
Condemn--
to declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or evil usually after weighing evidence and without reservation.
You've been making lots of reservations. You must be full...........of it.
Let's try this. I condemn Israeli oppression but you can't ignore that Hamas has been guilty of firing rockets into Israel during times of no hostility. How many years must Israel put up with this.
So I condemned Israeli oppression but gave justification for it. If you expect me to accept your double speak you need to accept mine. But guaranteed there will be a double standard.
Yes, so Israel should use it to address the larger issue that has led to this point.
Yup. It's ALL on Israel. It always has been and always will be for people like you.
It's all on Israel. Hamas isn't required to anything or make any changes.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]