Israeli air strikes on a so-called “humanitarian zone” in southern Gaza’s al-Mawasi killed at least 40 people on Tuesday, according to health authorities in the enclave.
The strikes targeted at least 20 tents sheltering displaced Palestinians in the coastal area near the city of Khan Younis.
Eyewitnesses told AFP that at least five rockets fell in the area, with emergency services saying the strikes created craters up to nine metres deep.
At this point I’ve just kind of realized that there is no argument to be had with them. Not that their stubborn, but genuinely. It’s not that they can’t be critical of Hamas that they’re arguing, but that their criticism is responded to by “whataboutism” (so says them). Which isn’t even an argument so much as a statement? Like I guess yea, if you say so? But the original article is talking about a bombing in a civilian safe-zone that may not even have killed Hamas militants, so criticism of Israel is expected, even in replies of criticism if Hamas. If anything they are just complaining about the way they were responded to, which I don’t even know what the response they want is? I’ve concurred with said criticism, but that doesn’t seem to be it either? I genuinely don’t know what there is to say, or what they want if it’s not agreement with their criticism. Maybe that the criticism should be unchallenged? But again this is a thread about IDF bombs killing civilians in a “safe zone”. Either way I don’t think it’s worth your time, as they can’t even commit to ending conversations that aren’t “worth their time.”