you said a lot of things here but you did not condemn the killing of a child. instead you say you wont play a game of false moral equivalence. In your world view Israel can do no wrong. or when you do wrong, you dont say sorry, but rather "they made us do it". if you look at the image Norlander posted it hits the mark. You are on a land against an enemy, and you are righteous and they are not. but for everyone else looking at the war, Israel is doing things that people find unpalatable - this is not to say that your enemy is right, they are not, but rather that the notion of a holy people vs an unholy people is simply wrong. I know I am not going to convince you but that does not stop me from calling it out when I see it.
I literally started my response by saying the death of that child is an absolute, heartbreaking tragedy. Pretending I didn't say that just because I refused to use your exact script is a transparent debate tactic.
I never said 'Israel can do no wrong,' nor did I ever claim this was a war of 'holy vs. unholy people.' Those are emotional strawmen you are inventing because you cannot address the actual history and security data I laid out.
I am looking at this through the lens of international law and military strategy, not theology. International law written by the global community, not Israel is based entirely on intent. Pointing out the foundational legal and moral difference between a tragic operational error and deliberate target selection isn't claiming perfection; it is stating a basic fact of modern warfare.
You completely ignored the factual realities I brought up: the active Hamas and PIJ strongholds in Jenin, the historical consequences of the Oslo Accords, and the necessity of unconditional surrender before rebuilding.
If your only response to hard strategic history and security facts is to accuse me of thinking I'm 'holy,' then you've run out of arguments. You can keep trying to turn an existential survival reality into a moral purity test, but the facts on the ground remain unchanged