Because intentions matter as well as actions, yes, the burned body of a Gazan baby is less horrific than that of a Jewish baby: both are terrible, but if there was no intent to kill the former, it's morally less blameworthy. I'm not saying that there's no blame attached, mind you. A drunken driver who has an accident in which someone is …
Because intentions matter as well as actions, yes, the burned body of a Gazan baby is less horrific than that of a Jewish baby: both are terrible, but if there was no intent to kill the former, it's morally less blameworthy. I'm not saying that there's no blame attached, mind you. A drunken driver who has an accident in which someone is killed is still quite rightly punished by the law because he should have known before he got into his car that there was such a risk. But his term of imprisonment won't be as long as that awarded to the man who hires a lorry and deliberately mows down pedestrians.
You're misunderstanding the analogy. If there's intent to kill babies, then yes, that's equally bad on both sides. But Israel's intent (given that it sends warnings to the inhabitants of the buildings, which are, at least in theory, Hamas military targets) is to destroy military installations and to kill Hamas leaders rather than civilians. I'm not defending Israel's actions here, merely drawing a distinction between the moral weight of the different motivations.
Throwing a grenade at a criminal in a playground is still immoral even if I say I was aiming at the criminal and never intended to kill all the children.
Being able to predict the fact that throwing a grenade in a playground would result in the deaths of the children but still going ahead and doing it makes me morally culpable.
The UN agrees that what Israel are doing amounts to collective punishment. It is against international law and a war crime.
Would it change the calculus if the criminal in question had already killed children and you knew that by letting him escape, he would kill more? If not, why not?
Oh the UN says it? The UN that spends 90% of its time passing resolutions to condemn Israel while saying not a word about all the atrocities that the rest of its members commit?
I don't think "carpet bombing" is a fair or accurate term to describe it. Israel hasn't lined B-52's up and said, "destroy these grid squares." It would be easy enough for them to do this if that's actually what they intended.
Yeah, I don't think that is "carpet-bombing" or else the rubble would have extended to the horizon. There are intact buildings, trees, and green spaces just beyond those two destroyed city blocks, which tells me the buildings in those two city blocks were precisely targeted, which is the opposite of "carpet bombing." I do not know if those buildings were legitimate military targets. Perhaps they were, perhaps they weren't. But they were clearly destroyed with precise intention rather than with carpet-bombing, which essentially means "everything south of this latitude is gone." I'm not trying to be pedantic.
I just want to know what your solution is. The public voted in and supports hamas. I doubt they were shedding any tears for dead Jews. Hamas has to answer for what they’ve done.
There is no way to engage in war without killing. Are you arguing that only some people should engage in war, and the rest should submit? Should Israel just hand the loving and mostly peaceful Palestinians a state and then flee back into the diaspora (where the rest of the world is busy proving they won’t be safe there)?
Hamas has carefully positioned all their resources to maximize civilian deaths when Israel attacks. They want the deaths because they know they’re winning the information war, and their hope is to inspire enough outrage to start a full scale regional war, which they are hoping to finally win this time - Jews be gone, Palestine "free from the river to the sea" as they shout on college campuses and in European city centers.
I've been reliably informed by my friends on the left that there's not such thing as a "civilian" in this conflict and, in a larger sense, that collective punishment is acceptable in matters of (cough) "justice." I'm not knocking you as one of those people, but their arguments over the past 15 to 20 years make it a lot harder for well-intentioned folks like yourself to argue and persuade from principle.
Your "5000 people are dead - half of them children" line comes straight from the mouth of Hamas, an Islamo-facist, Jew-hating, pro-genocide, murderous terrorist government. And there is no 'carpet bombing' happening in Gaza. Only precision-targeted strikes on Hamas military targets. It is not Israel's fault that Hamas uses - and has used - its civilians as human shields. Civilian deaths in Gaza are the fault of Hamas, Iran, and the wider Arab world, because the 'Palestinian cause' is and has always been a ruse to drive the Jews out of Israel.
Intentions matter, certainly. But on the road to war--especially one in which the United States may be drawn--there never was a more apt analogy than "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."
And with "collateral damage", it gets really messy. "Human shields" can be involuntary or voluntary, and even "proximate"--meaning, unless the bombing is ultra-precise, any bombing will have *inevitable* "collateral damage" in tightly packed situations--and exactly what caused those tightly packed conditions? Perhaps refusing 700,000 Arab-speaking Palestinians--and their descendents--from returning to their homes after fleeing violence in 1948 in what is now Israel had a bit to do with it. And fears of not allowing back again--due to their previous experience--is convincing many Gazans to not flee the violence now.
I've said this before, but after Timothy McVeigh bombing of the Murrah building in 1995, a "militia" man came in and crowed about how this was a blow against government tyranny. I asked what about the 19 children in the day care center there and he said, and I have never forgotten it, "War has been declared. There are no innocent victims!" (I knew this guy well - He was, of course, "Christian" and "pro-life.")
Same as it ever was... Same as it ever was... Same as it ever was...
Yes he did. He had lost his humanity in that he could not feel sorrow for the deaths of innocent children. Madeline Albright had lost her humanity when she said something to the effect that thousands of Iraqi deaths, including children, was worthwhile.
What I'm not sure about is what to do about an enemy like Hamas. The Gazan civilians are primarily in danger because Hamas wants it that way, right? If Hamas didn't weave itself in among the civilians like it does, then the civilians wouldn't be in such danger. But then is that supposed to mean that terrorists are safe and untouchable as long as they behave like Hamas does? Israel can't hit Hamas without hitting civilians (because that's how Hamas has set it up), but Israel also can't just let Hamas sit there in safety, thereby almost rewarding them for pursuing this sort of dishonorable strategy. The whole situation just seems morally impossible.
In principle, they do attack civilian centres in Gaza when those centres are used as civilian shields for Hamas installations, and they warn the residents before the attack. I say 'in principle', because we have no way of knowing either how accurate their information is, or whether in fact they do adhere to these guidelines. And I don't see what my reasoning has to do with the US or its allies - I'm British.
Because intentions matter as well as actions, yes, the burned body of a Gazan baby is less horrific than that of a Jewish baby: both are terrible, but if there was no intent to kill the former, it's morally less blameworthy. I'm not saying that there's no blame attached, mind you. A drunken driver who has an accident in which someone is killed is still quite rightly punished by the law because he should have known before he got into his car that there was such a risk. But his term of imprisonment won't be as long as that awarded to the man who hires a lorry and deliberately mows down pedestrians.
Are you arguing that there is no intent to kill in the act of carpet bombing one of the most densely populated places on the planet?
5000 people are dead. Half of them children.
No, the purpose of the bombing mission was not to kill children. The purpose was to destroy a military target. Which is how you win wars.
If I throw grenades at a criminal in a playground and wipe out all the children is that ok?
Bad analogy. Military planners will pick the tool for the scenario. For that, you use a sniper. Or gas him out.
Bombers are used for an entirely different mission.
And unless you, with your clearly superior military understanding, can come up with a better approach that actually gets the mission done...
"The mission" is good.
You're misunderstanding the analogy. If there's intent to kill babies, then yes, that's equally bad on both sides. But Israel's intent (given that it sends warnings to the inhabitants of the buildings, which are, at least in theory, Hamas military targets) is to destroy military installations and to kill Hamas leaders rather than civilians. I'm not defending Israel's actions here, merely drawing a distinction between the moral weight of the different motivations.
Throwing a grenade at a criminal in a playground is still immoral even if I say I was aiming at the criminal and never intended to kill all the children.
Being able to predict the fact that throwing a grenade in a playground would result in the deaths of the children but still going ahead and doing it makes me morally culpable.
The UN agrees that what Israel are doing amounts to collective punishment. It is against international law and a war crime.
Would it change the calculus if the criminal in question had already killed children and you knew that by letting him escape, he would kill more? If not, why not?
Oh the UN says it? The UN that spends 90% of its time passing resolutions to condemn Israel while saying not a word about all the atrocities that the rest of its members commit?
"The UN agrees" is just an appeal to authority, anyway.
The UN is a worthless organization that should have been disbanded long ago.
I don't think "carpet bombing" is a fair or accurate term to describe it. Israel hasn't lined B-52's up and said, "destroy these grid squares." It would be easy enough for them to do this if that's actually what they intended.
I don't think you can have seen the footage that I've seen.
In fact here, have a look https://x.com/AlanRMacLeod/status/1716483597366882506?s=20
Yeah, I don't think that is "carpet-bombing" or else the rubble would have extended to the horizon. There are intact buildings, trees, and green spaces just beyond those two destroyed city blocks, which tells me the buildings in those two city blocks were precisely targeted, which is the opposite of "carpet bombing." I do not know if those buildings were legitimate military targets. Perhaps they were, perhaps they weren't. But they were clearly destroyed with precise intention rather than with carpet-bombing, which essentially means "everything south of this latitude is gone." I'm not trying to be pedantic.
Half the population have been bombed out of their homes.
The would be more than a million people.
I just want to know what your solution is. The public voted in and supports hamas. I doubt they were shedding any tears for dead Jews. Hamas has to answer for what they’ve done.
There is no way to engage in war without killing. Are you arguing that only some people should engage in war, and the rest should submit? Should Israel just hand the loving and mostly peaceful Palestinians a state and then flee back into the diaspora (where the rest of the world is busy proving they won’t be safe there)?
Hamas has carefully positioned all their resources to maximize civilian deaths when Israel attacks. They want the deaths because they know they’re winning the information war, and their hope is to inspire enough outrage to start a full scale regional war, which they are hoping to finally win this time - Jews be gone, Palestine "free from the river to the sea" as they shout on college campuses and in European city centers.
What is it you think Israel should do exactly?
I've been reliably informed by my friends on the left that there's not such thing as a "civilian" in this conflict and, in a larger sense, that collective punishment is acceptable in matters of (cough) "justice." I'm not knocking you as one of those people, but their arguments over the past 15 to 20 years make it a lot harder for well-intentioned folks like yourself to argue and persuade from principle.
Are you accusing me of being 'on the left'?
No.
Your "5000 people are dead - half of them children" line comes straight from the mouth of Hamas, an Islamo-facist, Jew-hating, pro-genocide, murderous terrorist government. And there is no 'carpet bombing' happening in Gaza. Only precision-targeted strikes on Hamas military targets. It is not Israel's fault that Hamas uses - and has used - its civilians as human shields. Civilian deaths in Gaza are the fault of Hamas, Iran, and the wider Arab world, because the 'Palestinian cause' is and has always been a ruse to drive the Jews out of Israel.
Intentions matter, certainly. But on the road to war--especially one in which the United States may be drawn--there never was a more apt analogy than "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."
And with "collateral damage", it gets really messy. "Human shields" can be involuntary or voluntary, and even "proximate"--meaning, unless the bombing is ultra-precise, any bombing will have *inevitable* "collateral damage" in tightly packed situations--and exactly what caused those tightly packed conditions? Perhaps refusing 700,000 Arab-speaking Palestinians--and their descendents--from returning to their homes after fleeing violence in 1948 in what is now Israel had a bit to do with it. And fears of not allowing back again--due to their previous experience--is convincing many Gazans to not flee the violence now.
I've said this before, but after Timothy McVeigh bombing of the Murrah building in 1995, a "militia" man came in and crowed about how this was a blow against government tyranny. I asked what about the 19 children in the day care center there and he said, and I have never forgotten it, "War has been declared. There are no innocent victims!" (I knew this guy well - He was, of course, "Christian" and "pro-life.")
Same as it ever was... Same as it ever was... Same as it ever was...
He was morally insane.
Yes, he was. But he believed he made perfect sense.
Yes he did. He had lost his humanity in that he could not feel sorrow for the deaths of innocent children. Madeline Albright had lost her humanity when she said something to the effect that thousands of Iraqi deaths, including children, was worthwhile.
What I'm not sure about is what to do about an enemy like Hamas. The Gazan civilians are primarily in danger because Hamas wants it that way, right? If Hamas didn't weave itself in among the civilians like it does, then the civilians wouldn't be in such danger. But then is that supposed to mean that terrorists are safe and untouchable as long as they behave like Hamas does? Israel can't hit Hamas without hitting civilians (because that's how Hamas has set it up), but Israel also can't just let Hamas sit there in safety, thereby almost rewarding them for pursuing this sort of dishonorable strategy. The whole situation just seems morally impossible.
That's the hell of it, isn't it? The world often doesn't offer us a clear path. I think sometimes you're given what just seems as bad choices.
You don't think Israelis purposefully attack civilian centers in Gaza?
This sort of reasoning seems to boil down to "atrocities are okay when US allies do them"
In principle, they do attack civilian centres in Gaza when those centres are used as civilian shields for Hamas installations, and they warn the residents before the attack. I say 'in principle', because we have no way of knowing either how accurate their information is, or whether in fact they do adhere to these guidelines. And I don't see what my reasoning has to do with the US or its allies - I'm British.