
“Using civilians as human shields” implies that there was another way to fight that Hamas chose to avoid. Could you explain what other way they could fight? From their military bases that they don’t have because of Israeli blockades? From fortified positions in uninhabited areas that don’t really exist in Gaza?
Because it’s a dishonest framing, it puts the blame on Hamas instead of Israel where it rightfully belongs. Israel created the conditions in which Hamas is forced to operate and when Hamas defends themselves in the only way they are able to do so they are blamed for doing what they can. The only way Hamas could act morally in this framing would be to roll over and let Israel finish the ethnic cleansing
I mean it is total bs, I don’t feel any need to avoid that wording. It’s bs in the same way It’d be bs to claim that raccoons are violent and immoral creatures because I cornered one and it scratched me trying to escape. Ignoring the person forcing the violent response is entirely dishonest.
“Ok” is a pretty insufficient word here, also one I didn’t actually use. It’d be better if Hamas were able to defend themselves in a way that didnt put them in close quarters with innocent civilians but the Israelis made sure that was impossible. It might be more useful to think about if it’s “ok” for Israel to wage war on a densely populated area from which they prevent civilians from fleeing