What I'm not sure about is what to do about an enemy like Hamas. The Gazan civilians are primarily in danger because Hamas wants it that way, right? If Hamas didn't weave itself in among the civilians like it does, then the civilians wouldn't be in such danger. But then is that supposed to mean that terrorists are safe and untouchable as…
What I'm not sure about is what to do about an enemy like Hamas. The Gazan civilians are primarily in danger because Hamas wants it that way, right? If Hamas didn't weave itself in among the civilians like it does, then the civilians wouldn't be in such danger. But then is that supposed to mean that terrorists are safe and untouchable as long as they behave like Hamas does? Israel can't hit Hamas without hitting civilians (because that's how Hamas has set it up), but Israel also can't just let Hamas sit there in safety, thereby almost rewarding them for pursuing this sort of dishonorable strategy. The whole situation just seems morally impossible.
What I'm not sure about is what to do about an enemy like Hamas. The Gazan civilians are primarily in danger because Hamas wants it that way, right? If Hamas didn't weave itself in among the civilians like it does, then the civilians wouldn't be in such danger. But then is that supposed to mean that terrorists are safe and untouchable as long as they behave like Hamas does? Israel can't hit Hamas without hitting civilians (because that's how Hamas has set it up), but Israel also can't just let Hamas sit there in safety, thereby almost rewarding them for pursuing this sort of dishonorable strategy. The whole situation just seems morally impossible.
That's the hell of it, isn't it? The world often doesn't offer us a clear path. I think sometimes you're given what just seems as bad choices.