Sorry AC, I guess it went over your head....again.

If they are so supportive of the barbarism then they aren't innocent bystanders. They support Hamas and its actions and that means they aren't just caught in the middle. They chose a side and all that entails.

"Supporting it doesn't make one a perpetrator of it."

Well of course I never said it did. But we've seen over the last few months your proclivity of just fabricating others opinions. Its not a noble trait.

I can't help but notice you assiduously avoided the issue their attitude to the two-state non-solution.

"If they are so supportive of the barbarism then they aren't innocent bystanders."

Ahhh... so this is the 'thought police' angle.

They 'deserved' to be bombed for daring to dislike their oppression?

So if some fool bumrushed Albo at a public event and got him with a pie in the face, and I said 'Haha, suck it Albo you probably deserve that..."
Then you think I should be arrested just the same as the person who did it.

Only in your case you're trying to argue these people deserved to be bombed to death?

Is this what you're saying?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_resist
In international law, the right to resist is closely related to the principle of self-determination. It is widely recognized that a right to self-determination arises in situations of colonial domination, foreign occupation, and racist regimes that deny a segment of the population political participation. According to international law, states may not use force against the lawful exercise of self-determination, while those seeking self-determination may use military force if there is no other way to achieve their goals. Fayez Sayegh derives a right to resist from the Charter of the United Nations' recognition of an inherent right of national self-defense in the face of aggression. Based on the charter, the 1970 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2625 explicitly endorsed a right to resist 'subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation'. Based on this, many scholars argue that the right to resist exists in customary international law where self-determination is at issue.

So if Palestinians wish to kill IDF, it's perfectly fine under international law.
Killing non-combatants though, there's rules against that.
That's a WAR CRIME.

So ultimately, there seems to be a few important arguments you've missed.

The right to self determination.
The right to resist occupation.
Laws against human rights violations etc.

If you put these things back in where they belong.
Then your 'thought police' argument 'They deserved to be bombed' because they are guilty of 'thoughts' and 'cheering' has no basis
- It's completely ridiculous, and not worth my time.

Come back tomorrow and try again.

MP Layla Moran fears family trapped in Gaza church ‘will not survive until Christmas’
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/17/oxford-mp-layla-moran-fears-family-trapped-in-gaza-church-will-not-survive-until-christmas

"If they survive, I will be getting my family and others to give their testimony to the international criminal court, because that’s the place where justice will be done. But right now there is an immediate situation, and we need as many of them to survive as possible."

I'm not sure she should've mentioned 'international criminal court'.
What's the chances that no-one leaves that place alive now?

"So if Palestinians wish to kill IDF, it's perfectly fine under international law."

Yeah those 1 yr old members of the IDF are the worst.

"So if some fool bumrushed Albo at a public event and got him with a pie in the face, and I said 'Haha, suck it Albo you probably deserve that..."
Then you think I should be arrested just the same as the person who did it."

No....but if you help him to escape, hide him, continue to support him, help him make the next cake, then Yes.

Can't help but notice that you are determined to avoid addressing the lack of support for the two-state non-solution, Sorta puts a crimp in all your assertions, n'est pas?

"Can't help but notice that you are determined to avoid addressing the lack of support for the two-state non-solution"

Well, we're certainly no-where near that actually happening.
That will certainly never happen while the current Israeli government is in place.
- And not all that likely at this point even if the government is changed.
So now you're accusing me of NOT talking about something that isn't relevant right now?

Put's a crimp in my what?
Why do you do this?
Please explain.

Since Oct 7, Israel has predictably lashed out like an angry child.
Shows it's weakness actually, and Israeli troops have been paying a heavy price, I hear there's 2000 newly disabled IDF now.

These 'Operation Prosperity Guardian' warships going to Yemen...
It's a change in the current situation.
I wonder if we'll see a change in the attacks on Gaza?

It's a show of force by the West...
- But the West is not ready for a war with Iran.

Hezbollah, Houthi rebels attacking Israel-bound shipping, and the Iranian proxies attacking US bases in Syria and Iraq, are kind of loosely working together.

If Israel keeps attacking Palestinians,
Hezbollah keeps shelling Northern Israel
Iranian proxies keep attacking US bases
Houthis keeps attacking Israel-bound shipping.

The West isn't ready for a fight with Iran,
So before embarking on this naval adventure...
I wonder, did they tell Israel to stop, withdraw and find a smarter way forward?

Israel isn't achieving anything except earning the worlds ire, and getting their own IDF and hostages killed.

The US will want a show of strength, and it's too risky to get out of control if Houthis fire a ballistic missile on a US warship.

Dear Critic,

«I hope you don't begrudge me for my criticisms.»

I have my own criticism of the way Israel is going.
Constructive criticism that is based on true facts is more than welcome.

What I begrudge is the placing of all Israelis and "Zionists" in the same basket.
Regardless whether collectively criticised or praised, it hurts when one places my family in the same basket with Netanyahu, his Nazi companions and Messianic madmen.

How would you feel for example if someone wrote here, "Armchair Critic and his friend Donald Trump are wonderful fellows"?

«If I was to support the needless killing of non-combatants;»

I believe that nobody here supports any needless killings, whether of combatants or otherwise. The dispute seems to revolve around what constitutes a "need".

The concept of "need" is relative and subjective.
In absolute terms, nobody even needs to live, so nobody even needs air - so what if they die?

So here we have a conflict between different needs:
If my family needs to live, then in the given situation that many "Palestinian" families need to die. Show me some other course of action where all can live, and you will become everyone's hero!

«If they don't like the Muslims in Australia, (I didn't let them in, and no-one asked me if it was ok) they can start by supporting the right of return for Palestinians, and at least some would go home.»

Only a handful would give up their good life in Australia to "return" to some village they have never been to and which no longer exists.

Typical homes in Arab villages of the 1940's were made of primitive mud bricks and unless routinely maintained they collapsed by the rains within 2-3 years. Only the village chief had a proper stone home, but even these are in ruins after 75 years. Nearly all these villages have been built over since, replaced by roads, hospitals, industrial facilities and modern multi-storey buildings.

A financial compensation on the other hand, can contribute to Australian economy, while these Muslims can make good fighters against Chinese invasion.