- Moderator
- #101
This is small tit-for-tat thinking. One side takes 2000, the other takes 30000. Uneasy pause. One side takes 1000, the other side takes 300. Uneasy pause. Rinse. Repeat. No end game. The cost keeps adding up.
No. It isn’t. Acknowledging the enormous civilian death toll in just a few short months is not “tit” or “tat”. Saying it is time to change strategies is not “tat”.
The “how” of achieving goals can’t just ignored. I no longer believe they are really trying to minimize civilian harm (I’ve stated that before and given examples of what has been said could done differently).It's not about numbers, it's about achieving goals which will lead to a better future for everyone. Eliminating Hamas benefits everyone. The best we can do while accomplishing that goal is to minimize civilian harm to the extent possible.
The whole world did, until Israel stopped listening to its partners and allys and took it for granted that the support would continue no matter what.The world should be mobilizing to assist Israel in its goal to eliminate Hamas, to facilitate humanitarian aid and eventually to rebuild Gaza for a future of peace and prosperity.
Facilitate humanitarian aid? Other countries, NGO’s, etc. have been attempting that. But aside from the obvious issues in distributing aid caused by the dangers of being in a combat zone and the breakdown of law and order, and the destruction of infrastructure such as roads, Israel itself seems to be inhibiting it as well. it.