They have a right to defend themselves. They wouldn’t have been treated as nicely as they’ve treated Gazans if the roles were switched. Hamas decided to attack people who were so merciful to them when they wouldn’t have shown such mercy.
They have a right to defend themselves. They wouldn’t have been treated as nicely as they’ve treated Gazans if the roles were switched. Hamas decided to attack people who were so merciful to them when they wouldn’t have shown such mercy.
You know, your statement has honed in on the very heart, the very crux, of this debate. It’s how most people are approaching it, as a “deserve” consideration.
There are, incidentally, other ways of looking at it, asides from some worthy-ness perspective. Could it be possible that nobody is worthy? Or that each historical side has both worthy and unworthy people on it, instead of all being the same?