maxi
Well-known member
It's not a defence of the Hamas attack. The storming of the border was legitimate and defensive (as any population has the right to resist an illegal occupation and attack military targets), but the killing of civilians is not justified. As I said in that post, the article was about Israel's killing of peaceful protesters on the Gaza border, but I think the thrust of the article applies here too. The point being that Israel has the right to defend itself only by first ending its own war crimes which preceded the attack (the siege/blockade), but not by resorting to force. You've been ignoring this point.These analogies themselves are pro terrorist the way you have used them because the Hamas attack was not defensive but offensive (in both senses). Their attack was also de trop because they knew it would result in war but instead of just declaring war they decided to kill a ton of completely innocent people who constituted no offensive threat at all and take a bunch of similarly undangerous hostages. I don't think this is a controversial interpretation because practically all of the Western leaders immediately came to the same conclusion.