[
First soure is conflating collateral damage with collective punishment, second one is flat out wrong as white phosphorus is not a chemical weapon, and you don't even cite a source for the third, which tells me everything I need to know about it.
The UN has filed more human rights complaints against Isreal than any other nation on earth combined. Even if you think they're genuinely bad in many areas, that degree of hostility by the UN isn't warranted.
That's somewhat inaccurate, no one had has ever been "crammed into" Gaza in the sense you're talking about, the strip has never had people forcibly relocated into it. It's popular has simply grown.
As for collateral damage, yes it's inevitable. So?
I can't find any reputable sources that claim something like that is happening.
Yes, and? Someone was going benefit the most from US aid, if it happened to be, say, Japan, does that mean Japan secretly runs the US.
Why's being pro-gun or pro-life pr anti-CRT a requirement if you want to get anywhere as a republican? It's a big tent party that lumps a bunch of different interest groups together, and candidates try to appeal to all of them in order to get votes.
I could ask the same in reverse for progressives, why opposing Israel is seen as a litmus test for them.
You're right, the UN doesn't go far enough with Israel, which does engage in collective punishment, uses chemical weapons against civilians, and is actively practicing ethnic cleansing in the West Bank.
First soure is conflating collateral damage with collective punishment, second one is flat out wrong as white phosphorus is not a chemical weapon, and you don't even cite a source for the third, which tells me everything I need to know about it.
The UN has filed more human rights complaints against Isreal than any other nation on earth combined. Even if you think they're genuinely bad in many areas, that degree of hostility by the UN isn't warranted.
There's also the fact that Israel has crammed them all into a tiny, dense strip of land that makes civilian casualties in any confrontation a certainty.
That's somewhat inaccurate, no one had has ever been "crammed into" Gaza in the sense you're talking about, the strip has never had people forcibly relocated into it. It's popular has simply grown.
As for collateral damage, yes it's inevitable. So?
So when they, let's say, bulldoze the homes of Palestinian "terrorists" and leave their families homeless you would not call that collective punishment?
I can't find any reputable sources that claim something like that is happening.
We have funneled more money to the Israelis than to any country since WW2.
Yes, and? Someone was going benefit the most from US aid, if it happened to be, say, Japan, does that mean Japan secretly runs the US.
There's also the fact that every major presidential candidate in at least one of our two parties have to religiously state their support for Israel. Why? Why's supporting Israel a requirement if you want to get anywhere as a Republican?
Why's being pro-gun or pro-life pr anti-CRT a requirement if you want to get anywhere as a republican? It's a big tent party that lumps a bunch of different interest groups together, and candidates try to appeal to all of them in order to get votes.
I could ask the same in reverse for progressives, why opposing Israel is seen as a litmus test for them.