one of the weirder objections to israel's actions
so: Israel cut off the water and electricity they were giving Gazans, and people have been making a big deal about it.
It's like if I decide to let you and your cat live in my home for free. Throughout the time, you make basically no effort to become independent and are a horrible guest, but I let you stay. Then you murder my sibling, who happens to live in the house also (it's a crowded house), for the crime of living in my house. I kick you (and your cat) out.
In what world is that unjustified?
You can say Israel made a poor strategic move providing that to Gaza and basically helping to subsidize Hamas, you can say they should be thanked for that (they should; imagine if the US government provided free water and electricity to a country whose government despised our very existence) - but I do not get how you can spin "Israel was providing free water and electricity to Gazans, no strings attached, and Hamas, the government, just sort of assumed they'd get to keep getting it if they slaughtered Israelis (or, worse, realized it would stop but figured the PR gains would be good), so they never bothered to make many steps towards having a functioning grid in the absence of Israel's actions, and Israel stopped" into something bad. Like, honestly, it doesn't really matter! Israel has no obligation to give anything away like that! If Hamas didn't set up a functioning power grid or water system, that's on them!
The logic underlying this is really, really, shaky. If Alex can cook and Casey can't cook to save their life (and refuses to learn how to), but Casey kills one of Alex's two healthy, happy, dogs, and Alex leaves, would these people say Alex should move back in because poor Casey will starve? (assume there's no restaurants nearby or anything)
If Alex decides, for whatever reason, that they don't want to live with Casey anymore (assume they're not in some sort of romantic relationship or anything, they just live together to save on housing costs) - maybe Alex got a good job but it's far away and Casey won't move, maybe it was abuse, maybe Alex wants to move to Switzerland and train to become an Olympic skier - would these people say Alex cannot?
And if the reason Alex leaves isn't because of any of Casey's horrible habits and abusiveness, but because Casey killed Alex's dog, would, instead of saying, "Shit, I'm so sorry, do you need anything" or even thinking "Maybe Alex should've left earlier", would they say, "too bad, Casey can't cook, go back"?
Because the underlying logic is basically the same.