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 t…
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.
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.