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 civilia…
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?
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.