Read the article I linked to. Then claim with a straight face that razing Gaza is the only option Israel has.
Great comment and again no answer.
You think question with suggestive answer is dishonest way of conducting debate? Ok. I get that. Let’s remove any suggestiveness from the question. “ What would you suggest Israel do if fighting hamas is not an option.”
I am not OP an I personally did not suggest anything, I just wanted to see your responsible answer.
So, what Israel should do in your opinion? And what outcome you expect after it does it?
PS: I’ve read the article. Disappointed by the quality of it. It is written with intention of emotional impact and to push predefined agenda. It twists meaning by playing with words. I notice those tricks and can’t read it with keeping my face ‘straight’( using your word).
The "agenda" is to make people aware of the fact that Israel is deliberately targeting civilians, based on sources within the IDF who work on targeting. The "emotional impact" is that any person with normal human emotions would be sickened by the fact that Israel is killing tens of thousands of civilians in Gaza.
I know I asked another person but the main question was :
“ What Israel should do in your opinion? What outcome you expect once it does it?”
Can you answer that question too?
As to the “agenda” I see different “agenda”.
What it definitely should not do is murder thousands of Palestinian children and destroy the Gaza Strip. However, this is what Israel has chosen to do.
Looking further ahead, what do you think the consequences of continued Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories (East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza) will be? Can you justify keeping millions of people under continued military occupation, without any rights and under constant harassment? Can you justify the continuation of the dual legal regime in the occupied territories, under which Jewish settlers have full citizenship rights, while Palestinians have no rights (this is what many now characterize as Apartheid)?
Sure this could be a possibility once you finish describing consequences of the action of withdrawal you’ve suggested Israel to take. Suggested alternative is incomplete without you describing realistic outcome of it an thus leaves the current option Israel took as the only one possible which makes discussing it irrelevant wether you like it or not.
Please responsibly describe outcome of the suggested alternative and then we can compare it with current situation.
Are you a parrot or something?
No, I am a person and you are exploring limits of my famous patience which is allowed only to my students as long as they wish to learn.
Also I am very persuasive in following logic and being responsible for own words. The only sensible way to discuss hard issues and to keep being in sync in conversation.
>Do you not understand that NOT killing 20k Palestinians in 60 days is an option (and answers your question)?
Help me understand what you suggest exactly and what outcome you expect after Israel does it? Make your statement so we would be on the same page to discuss it. Then it actually would be possible to discuss it.
Don’t you think you should be responsible with your words and understand consequences of things you suggest before opening your mouth about such sensitive topics? I am getting sick of irresponsible people spreading BS around without ever stating what they say or thinking through the consequences of the things they suggest.
>I've posed several questions to you and you keep not answering them.
This is because you didn’t answer one and only question I ever asked you in the first place.
Well what you have suggested would inevitably lead to what is happening already only on a bigger scale. Consciously or not it seems you do not mind that and thus the loss of life because it is too hard for you to analyse outcome of your own propositions.
The alternative, you claim, is "what is happening already only on a bigger scale," meaning more attacks on Israel, as on 7 October. You say that ending the occupation will lead to loss of life, which you accuse me of not caring about.
In other words, in your view, only Israel's security matters, and only Israeli lives matter. 20k Palestinians killed: a necessary price for Israel's security. Indefinite Palestinian subjugation to a foreign military power that slowly takes over more and more Palestinian land: necessary to preserve Israeli security. Israel withdrawing to its internationally recognized borders, as demanded by UN Security Council Resolution 242: unthinkable.
This is incorrect and it’s demonstration of putting words into my mouth. Another trick to be noticed.
Short reflection on this exchange shows clearly that I am deliberately trying to avoid putting words into your mouth in order to see your analysis of the outcome to the actions you’ve suggested for Israel to take.
And while I do that you are desperately trying to avoid answering second part of the question.
“What outcome you expect after Israel does what you’ve suggested?”
Since analyse of outcome did not arrive I did it for you.
>The alternative, you claim …
I didn’t. I have analysed your so called “alternative” which it is not. Israel has already tested this “brilliant” idea in 2005 by withdrawing it’s forces from Gaza together with all settlements in Gaza strip in case you didn’t know and it have led to the current situation with a bigger scale of loss of life. Not caring about this fact together with your repeated lack of wish to analyse deadly outcome of your own suggestion demonstrates your lack of caring about the loss of life wether it is intentional or not.
> In other words …
Well let’s leave ‘In other words’ as ‘another words’ that are just words. They ate yours, not my.
The confusion in your comment between some fantasies and my actual opinion rises questions about integrity of ways in which you’ve analysed this conflict in general.