Thats not option thats consequences of using their population as human shields but nice dodge
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
This post was edited by ferdia on Jun 24 2026 07:52am