Abortions and Violations of the IUD in Gaza

You don't think there is a contradiction between the fact that you oppose the murder (in your opinion of course) of a fetus that you agree is not fully alive, and the fact that you do not support saving kidnapped people alive and support military operations that will kill thousands of civilians, even though the lives that these operations will save (not making a deal and not making military operations) will not necessarily be many, and if we consider all the lives of the soldiers, it turns out that the total is locked in saving many more lives if we do not make a war and make a deal (both of civilians in Gaza and of kidnapped people and of soldiers). My point is that the value of life for you is very flexible and I am trying to understand when you put it at the forefront of considerations and when you do not.

I asked for a focused question. The only question is whether I think that... My answer: No. You should improve your analogies. In the meantime, their situation is dismal.

I'll try one last time. Your main argument against abortion is that the fetus is considered alive and the value of the fetus's life outweighs the convenience of the mother and the environment, even if it comes at the cost of destroying the private lives of the mother and the fetus itself, and all this when it comes to a fetus that you also admit is not completely alive (therefore, its outcome is easier in the case of rape). On the other hand, you oppose a deal that would release hostages alive and well, and it is clear to you that if there is no deal, everyone will die, even though if you look at the lives that will die later as a result of the deal, it is likely that they will be much fewer in number. Again, I ask when the value of the individual's life outweighs other considerations and when it does not, because I assume that you also agree that with a deal we can save many more lives than without a deal, which at most will bring us national honor or all sorts of things of that nature.

You can't get past the barrier. A stupid analogy that you repeat over and over again and fail to improve.
The comparison between the value of a baby's life and the lives of the kidnapped is a very small part of the picture. The question is what is on the other side. You are blowing up arguments of national honor from your fevered mind. Do you think you have closed the comparison? Are you serious?
We can't save anything with a deal. First, because Hamas does not agree to any deal. These deals exist only in the psychotic minds of the Kaplanists. And even if it does agree, it will only be at a price that we are forbidden to pay, of many lives and the loss of land. It also does not give us even a hint who is alive and who is dead, and following the hysterical and suicidal demonstrations of these days, there is a good chance that many more bodies will be added to ours.
So there you have it, there is no connection between the two sides of the ridiculous comparison you made. But it is probably part of the same psychosis that I am writing about. The madness of the systems that causes people to have brain blockages

Once again, this blatant lie by Channel 14, I am surprised that the rabbi fell for this disgusting lie that is entirely designed to serve Netanyahu and Smotritz. There is a deal on the table in two stages, at the end of which there will indeed be a full withdrawal from Gaza, and this is precisely the point that from the right, from the perspective of the right, a withdrawal from Gaza is like handing over the entire Land of Israel. If from your perspective, a full withdrawal from Gaza will result in a higher price than the lives of the kidnapped, that is another matter and that can also be debated. I spoke about the current proposal in which we do withdraw completely from Gaza and accept all the kidnapped, assuming that most of them are alive (hopefully) and assuming that the price we pay for a withdrawal will not be higher. And besides, I understood that even in the current outline, it will be possible to enter Gaza from time to time, just like in Ramallah and Nablus, and there are also many armed people there, the difference is that they are less organized and do not have battalions like in Gaza.

I would be very happy if the rabbi would explain about those regions of the country. To the best of my knowledge, the above deal does not talk about giving the surrounding kibbutzim or anything like that. It talks about handing over territory that we have not lived in for 19 years, and as for the north, I assume that this deal has nothing to do with it at all, and in the meantime it seems that despite the war, Hezbollah has already received the territory even without a deal.

I'm done. Talking to the wall is not one of my current hobbies.

Another thing, if the goal is indeed to collapse Hamas, then at the same time there should have been a discussion about an alternative government in Gaza, since that is not happening. It looks more and more as if the goal is simply to continue the war indefinitely, in the end the state will collapse. We will see if your path was indeed right.