It’s not on Israel if a terrorist lets their kids play with their tools.
Man has pager in his pocket. Man is sitting down having a meal with his family. Pager blows up in his pocket, killing the child sitting next to him, and probably killing or injuring other family members.
Targeted or not, that child’s death is squarely on Israel. They decided that collateral damage was acceptable when they chose this method of mass assassination.
This attack didn’t just target militants, it also hit politicians who would be working diplomatically towards peace. Israel has an extremely broad definition of “terrorist”
Man has pager in his pocket. Man is sitting down having a meal with his family. Pager blows up in his pocket, killing the child sitting next to him, and probably killing or injuring other family members.
Targeted or not, that child’s death is squarely on Israel. They decided that collateral damage was acceptable when they chose this method of mass assassination.
When Hezbollah chose to reopen hostilities with Israel the outcome would always be more death. Her father could have chosen peace instead
This attack didn’t just target militants, it also hit politicians who would be working diplomatically towards peace. Israel has an extremely broad definition of “terrorist”
Do you have examples?
This article lists some of the targets, including an ambassador or an MPs son.
Ok, but where did you read that these two people were “working towards peace” ?
Politicians and diplomats would be the ones involved in peace talks.
So you’re assuming that these two were working towarda peace?
“Would be as in “would be the ones having peace talks if Hezbollah had ‘chosen peace’”
Do you understand the difference in meaning between “were” and “would be”?
There can’t be peace talks if you kill and maim the people you would be doing the peace talks with.
This is a stupid argument because Israel is the clear aggressor in this conflict.