It depends on the context. I very much agree, that I cannot take anyone seriously talking about human right abuse and not ever condemning Hamas. But I don't think that one has to say it everytime, when critizing deaths of children. And we don't know the concrete examples in question.
What moral significance does that have? Most of the same people who do nothing but bring out the "but they didn't condemn Hamas" trope have never cared about what the IDF has done to Palestinian civilians. Does that mean the rest of us should not care about Hamas crime or ignore its victims? Of course not, right?
You can't seriously believe that responding to criticism of the undeniable indiscriminate slaughter of civilians with "but a lot of the people protesting our actions have never indicated they condemned the attack against us" appears to the rest of us as a reasonable or credible moral claim.
A mother whose childs have just been killed and who never supported Hamas in any way absolutely has the right to critize the bombings that killed her family, without having to present a working geopolitical plan.
> So the mother should just shut up and accept that her children are not to be spoken about?
for sake of mutual peace and future every human should think hard before talking on sensitive topics. But humans can't, so we butcher each other instead for thousands of years.
I said "think hard", not "shut up", then she may realize that Hamas role in death of her kids is significant, and she is a puppet for Hamas propaganda. The same is relevant to you btw.
I am a puppet for Hamas, because I say killing of children is bad and the IDF should not give up restraint while operating in densely populated ares? Ok then, I got your opinion. But in my world, things are not so black and white.
"Israel's defense minister said he has "released all restraints" on the Israel Defense Forces' troops in their fight "
Militray restrain means watching where you are shooting - and not shooting if the danger of civilian deaths are too high. The IDF officially given up on using restraint - and the number of civilian deaths and among them many, many children show it.
So fighting terror with terror? That's what it seems to me. And being called a puppet for one side, because I critize both sides - is just a very typical thing for this whole debate.
No, obviously not all restraint. They would loose US support if they would.
But the israeli defense minister literally said he ordered the IDF to give up restraint. How much more official do you want it?
And the evidence that they are following this order, is the high civilian death number.
"and if this will be sufficient to defeat Hamas."
And this is the thing - as long as the Hamas leaders are safe in Quatar and being supported by Turkey as "freedom fighters" and others - this is not a fight that can be won with just using more brute force.
To be clear, I do think Israel has a right to militarily target the Hamas - but not palestinian people as a whole. Every innocent child that dies fuels anger and new terrorism.
Even if all of Gaza is cleared and its population send to the Sinai desert - it would not really make Israel safer. It is just a really complicated conflict with very, very old roots.
