A couple of points:
1. The New York Times and Reuters have written articles which highlighted that Israel used Palestinian prisoners as human shields. According to investigations, Israeli soldiers and intelligence agents frequently compelled Palestinian detainees to undertake life-threatening missions.
2. As has been discussed repeatedly in this thread, Israel's position is that it wants to defeat Hamas, or Hezbollah (or both). Noting both organisations are embedded into the respective communities, Israel has been carrying out military action, which has in effect flattened parts of Gaza and Lebanon, which has resulted in a massive loss of civilian life. Donald Trump has also highlighted that the Israeli approach kills far too many civilians and that a more tactical approach is optimal for a variety of reasons.
This is an old argument, I accept you won't change your position, the counter weight is that users simply won't agree with your position, or commentary. If someone says:
"Not bombing women and children" this response: "Thats not option thats consequences of using their population as human shields but nice dodge" is not optimal. I am not lecturing, I am merely saying your counter argument is weak. no offence intended here.
cheers
You are conflating two entirely different scales of action to draw a completely false moral equivalence, Ferida.
First, on the NYT/Reuters allegations: If individual soldiers or units breached protocol, those cases are investigated and handled under Israeli military law because we have a judicial system. But comparing isolated tactical field incidents to the state-mandated strategy of Hamas and Hezbollah is a joke. Hamas didn’t just 'embed' into communities; they explicitly built hundreds of miles of military tunnels beneath civilian living rooms, hospitals, and schools with the deliberate, top-down strategy of using their entire population to shield their arsenal.
Second, you mention Donald Trump talking about a 'more tactical approach.' No one disputes that urban warfare in one of the most densely populated, booby-trapped environments on earth causes catastrophic destruction. But neither Trump nor anyone else has ever provided a magical alternative for how you defeat an army of 40,000 embedded terrorists without destroying the civilian infrastructure they transformed into military outposts.
When a terrorist fires a rocket from a school or a bedroom window, that civilian structure legally becomes a military target under international law. Pointing out that civilian deaths are the direct consequence of human shielding isn't a 'weak argument' it is the literal definition of urban warfare against a death cult. You can call it un-optimal, but we don't have the luxury of fighting a theoretical war from a keyboard