Likewise, to this day, majorities of israelis support the israeli ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
> That's like saying in WW2, we can't attack Berlin because there are innocent Germans who don't support Nazis.
There's a difference between collateral damage and the israeli ethnic cleansing of Palestine. That said, the intentional firebombing of German civilians was arguably a war crime, so you're arguing against your point here. Indeed, the geneva conventions are partially motivated by the atrocities that occurred during WWII, with the aim of making sure they happened "never again".
> So how exactly do you propose to fight Hamas in an urban environment when it's blending in to the population that largely supports them
That's not my problem, but ethnic cleansing is obviously an illegal and wrong way to go about it. Still though, an answer to your request can be found here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44718080
That is simply nonsense. Provide a link to a poll stating that. You can't.
> difference between collateral damage and the israeli ethnic cleansing of Palestine
More nonsense. You are just throwing out words. There is no ethnic cleansing. Palestinians are still there - no one is kicking them out. In fact, their population increased. And since there is no ethnic cleansing, your point is moot. What is happening is a modern war, door to door fighting - with collateral damage. The situation is grim.
> So how exactly do you propose to fight Hamas >> That's not my problem
Of course, it isn't. You just like to throw big words and feel good about yourself, while providing zero solutions to anything.
That's like saying in WW2, we can't attack Berlin because there are innocent Germans who don't support Nazis.
So how exactly do you propose to fight Hamas in an urban environment when it's blending in to the population that largely supports them (and only put on a uniform during propaganda events like hostage handovers)?