Conveying information devoid of moral positions I suppose could be considered amoral. Like saying “there are speed limits on most US roads” is amoral.
Here’s a definition because it seems like you may need one:
having or showing no concern about whether behavior is morally right or wrong
You could read into that, which it seems like you really want to do or you could just read it as I said it. Which is to convey a fact.
That said, I have since given some moral positions such as it’s more moral to consider civilian deaths than to purposefully target them. I never thought I’d be defending that position.
I have. I would materially improve the conditions of the civilian Palestinians…
You’re thinking too small. Imagine if all a Jihadist group like Hamas needed to do was roll up, shooting from the windows of ambulances and, being of high moral fiber, the Israelis did absolutely nothing about it. Why? Well, ambulances are protected. We mustn’t target them.
Doing that would guarantee that those of higher morals would be consistently beaten down and killed by those who don’t give a fuck (that’s Hamas in this situation).
Hamas only exist because of the oppression of Israel. Take that away and the need for Hamas will dwindle
This is such utter bullshit and the only thing you need to know to confirm it is to realize Jihadist groups exist in all sorts of places where Israel isn’t a factor in the slightest (i.e., EVERY other place seeing as they were driven out of Muslim countries a while back. Funny no one is talking about their right to return…). Believe these groups when they tell you they kill because their religion requires/allows it. Their religion tells them that dying for the cause is fine, even laudable. They’ll go to paradise. I suspect that’s why they’re also fine with using their own citizens as human shields - as long as they’re true believers, it’s no problem. They’ll also go to paradise.