Would you like to more precisely outline the hypocrisy that is comparable in this case - between the targeting of combatants that results in collateral damage, and the assertion that attacking civilians with rocket barrages is valid because Israel has a ‘conscript army’, implicitly asserting that all Israeli civilians are legitimate targets?
The way israel will commit acts of terrorism because there may be hezbola, and civilian bystanders are “acceptable” because they are “targeting” hezbola, or Hamas. It is seen as “ok” by some because “Hamas or Hezbola”. When Hamas or hezbola launch rockets into israel to “target” Israeli combatants, on the clock or off, those acts of terror are considered the worst thing, and it continues the circle of violence.
I don’t ascribe to it.
Then repeating things like this
in attempting to equate collateral damage with attacking civilians should probably be avoided.
It’s pointing out the hypocrisy, that is all.
Would you like to more precisely outline the hypocrisy that is comparable in this case - between the targeting of combatants that results in collateral damage, and the assertion that attacking civilians with rocket barrages is valid because Israel has a ‘conscript army’, implicitly asserting that all Israeli civilians are legitimate targets?
The way israel will commit acts of terrorism because there may be hezbola, and civilian bystanders are “acceptable” because they are “targeting” hezbola, or Hamas. It is seen as “ok” by some because “Hamas or Hezbola”. When Hamas or hezbola launch rockets into israel to “target” Israeli combatants, on the clock or off, those acts of terror are considered the worst thing, and it continues the circle of violence.