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 theyтАЩve 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 wonтАЩt be safe there)?
Hamas has carefully positioned all their resources to maximize civilian deaths when Israel attacks. They want the deaths because they know theyтАЩre 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.
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 theyтАЩve 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 wonтАЩt be safe there)?
Hamas has carefully positioned all their resources to maximize civilian deaths when Israel attacks. They want the deaths because they know theyтАЩre 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.