I'll leave it to you and others who read this to evaluate the columnist's argument in the linked article vs. the UN commissioner's argument published last week in the same publication. https://archive.ph/FP2ek
The UN commissioner ignores all the obvious arguments against his case.
For instance, he ignores that Israel goes out of its way to warn civilians before attacking, and provides aid to civilians. He ignores that Israel could simply kill ALL the civilians with a bunch of bombs if its intent was actually genocide, and yet it has not.
This is not a serious debate. Israel is not genociding. If you disagree, you need to respond to the actual arguments. But nobody on the other side is doing so, because they can't, because Israel is not genociding.
Please wake up. When the dust settles and people start clearing all those buildings you destroyed you will see that 60,000 casualty number grow by multiples. How will you feel then about what Israel has done?
toomim|5 months ago
For instance, he ignores that Israel goes out of its way to warn civilians before attacking, and provides aid to civilians. He ignores that Israel could simply kill ALL the civilians with a bunch of bombs if its intent was actually genocide, and yet it has not.
This is not a serious debate. Israel is not genociding. If you disagree, you need to respond to the actual arguments. But nobody on the other side is doing so, because they can't, because Israel is not genociding.
Please think about this.
DSingularity|5 months ago