In regards to your first statement you do not. The very reason you apply moral equivalency to Hamas as the IDF is because you do not apply the same standards of behaviour.
I use the same definition of terrorism towards both sides IE the use or threat of the use of violence to further a political/ideological aim.
In the case of Hamas their use of terrorism/war crimes is to further their agenda of a national homeland for the Palestinian people, however they wish to view that.
In the case of the state of Israel and their use of state terrorism/war crimes it is to further their agenda of territorial expansion into the OPTs and the subjugation of the resistance to it.
Eitherway both sides are guilty of threatening the use of and actually using violence to further their political objectives. Don't like it? Tough. But at least you cannot claim the same standards are not being applied because the clearly are being applied
Your second statement rationalizes why you use death tolls to state the amount of death is how you determine morality. Its not the test. I in fact deliberately took the time to explain the 4 legal principles that are applied. Its not a subjective declaration from you that as long as the IDF has more military technology than Hamas, what Hamas does is acceptable. Your reasoning is absurd and absolves Hamas for moral culpability for using its citizens as fodder which is the reason they die not the IDF's technology superiority. What makes it even more irrational or illogical is that if the IDF actually used the extent of its strength it would have wiped out the entire Gaza long ago.
Maybe you conveniently chose to forget the IDFs use of the Dahiya Doctrine , which is the obvious rejection of being constricted by any notions of proportionality? If you want to separate this debate on the laws of war etc from everything else so as to address your " 4 points" , that's fine with me too.
The death toll comment was strictly to confirm that state terrorism accounts for more death and destruction than does group terrorism. Factually uncontroversial btw
The HRs groups have investigated the claims that Hamas uses human shields and found that, apart from asking them to do so, there is no evidence that anyone is FORCED into being one. In fact , the same investigators have found more occasions of IDF members FORCING Palestinians to be human shields and/or being FORCED to engage in military operations, which is illegal of course, than any such situation wrt Hamas operatives. Recall too it was an official IDF process until the HRs groups forced the change upon it.
Recall too that the state of Israel has some 500,000 plus human shield illegal settlers living the OPT . You are seriously in no position to talk of Hamas use of HSs when remaining quiet/silent on the above
Where have I said that what Hamas does is acceptable ? The only thing they have done which is clearly acceptable is when they have engaged in military actions against the IDF/Israeli security forces and I have no issue saying that this is legitimate resistance to a foreign occupation
Your third statement is shrill pro Hamas cheer-leading. The IDF has no mandate to crush, dispossess or displace anyone. Its role is to defend the state against attack. Period. The rest is your political bias projected.
No, the statement is factually and historically correct. If the state of Israel was about protecting the lives of its citizens it wouldn't have encouraged and/or bankrolled half a milliuon of them to moe, illegally, into hostile territory to act as human shields for an illegal land annexation programme. The IDF has and is charged with protecting people illegally living in someone elses country. Your arguments are hopelessly weak/strong on bias imo and are based on a selective application of standards and a denail of the realities of the conflict
lly correctIn regards to your last statement telling me you are well up to defending Hamas and pissing on Israel for defending itself against Hamas means nothing to me. I can debate it as well. Your difference of opinion is expected on a forum. Making comments you are "well up for it" sounds like you feel I make you insecure and you need to brag about your potency to me. Not interested.
I am debating your words not their potency. The words you state speak for themselves whether they are credible or not.
I am well up for this, have been for years but you shouldn't flatter yourself that it is due to your introduction, get over yourself and just accept the challenge