2 ms·
Your answer is unrealistic, but I didn’t provide a long enough question. I’m not justifying genocide obviously. The initial response to Oct7 was justified but n
by stogot 2y ago
Your answer is unrealistic, but I didn’t provide a long enough question. I’m not justifying genocide obviously. The initial response to Oct7 was justified but not complete destruction of Gaza.
Im asking why “not continuing to fight” (a ceasefire) is even a viable option for Israel’s politicians per the article’s demands. I am a realist not an optimist. Give a viable alternative. The cycle continues
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- insane_dreamer 2y ago> initial response to Oct7 was justified but not complete destruction of Gaza agreed but it's pretty clear now that the complete destruction of Gaza was the plan all along
- afiori 2y ago> The initial response to Oct7 was justified but not complete destruction of Gaza. Technically Israel is an occupying power so under intentional law it does not have a right of retaliation against its occupied territories.