The analogy was about the very specific and critical claim that Israel is killing innocent civilians unintentionally. The point of looking at the same scenario domestically is that it becomes clear that the killing would be considered by everyone to be intentional.
Let’s just call “collateral damage” what it is: the international killing of innocent people: murder. Then we can have an honest conversation about supporting a war, with the obvious burden being on the person advocating for it to demonstrate that this is absolutely necessary with no conceivable alternatives.
John Spencer, Chair of Urban Warfare Studies and veteran:
You claim that Israel is killing civilians intentionally. This is a false claim.
First, we have to address the false claim that you have enough data, information, and evidence to say Isarel is intentionally killing innocent civilians in their execution of the war. You do not. They do not.
Dave:
Without appealing to a set of theories or laws around war, just explain it. How does the foundational concept of intent change because a politician or a group of politicians declare a word and it takes place on foreign soil?
Brian Cox, adjunct Ivy professor and veteran:
The reason actual experts like @SpencerGuard keep "invoking legalities & doctrine" is because these are the rules that govern warfare. Just like domestic laws prohibiting "murder" (your term from previous post on topic) & other categories of homicide, conduct of armed hostilities is governed by rules as well.
This philosophical difference between contexts explains why intent works differently in both - and the philosophical reason for this difference is a function of different concepts of necessity.
Once again, I'm not impressed by the experts. Dave's point is that Israel is knowingly killing huge numbers of civilians in Gaza to get to Hamas targets. Spencer and Cox's point is that as long as Israel justifies its bomb runs with a military target, its killing of civilians is judged "unintentional" in a legal context.
It's pretty obvious that Israel exhibits a depraved indifference to civilian lives, which is the point. But Spencer and Cox would argue that "depraved indifference" is a civilian legal term so it's not applicable. Seems like a useless point to me, as I know Israelis will never face any legal consequences for their actions.
I disagree. Hamas hides behind civilians, human shields. There is no recourse to this other than to bomb them anyhow. What choice is there? Allow Hamas to freely operate so long as they have women and children to hide behind? nope, no war in history has allowed that.
The civilian casualties in Gaza are without doubt a record low for such a violent battlefield. The IDF is going "slow but steady" to keep civilian losses to a minimum because they KNOW all too well how international propaganda can undermine their capabilities. Make their government leaders wet themselves in fear of being scolded while Assad killed 220,000 of his own people without a whisper of condemnation.
In just 1 battle of WW2, Ortona, Canada attacked after the Germans had secretly reinforced. The ensuing 8 day bloodbath saw most of the town leveled & 1,300 civilian deaths out of a population of 10,000. 13% of civilians died. What's the rate in Gaza? 30K civilians out of 2M over 18 months? That's including those killed BY Hamas either accidentally or intentionally.
It gets uglier. Those children are specifically bred to serve as human shields and scouts. Very few of them manage to break away from the ideological brainwashing that takes place from the beginning of their lives.
Worst part? The UNRWA is involved in this wretched process.
Abridged summary of the discussion:
Dave:
John Spencer, Chair of Urban Warfare Studies and veteran:
Dave:
Brian Cox, adjunct Ivy professor and veteran:
Once again, I'm not impressed by the experts. Dave's point is that Israel is knowingly killing huge numbers of civilians in Gaza to get to Hamas targets. Spencer and Cox's point is that as long as Israel justifies its bomb runs with a military target, its killing of civilians is judged "unintentional" in a legal context.
It's pretty obvious that Israel exhibits a depraved indifference to civilian lives, which is the point. But Spencer and Cox would argue that "depraved indifference" is a civilian legal term so it's not applicable. Seems like a useless point to me, as I know Israelis will never face any legal consequences for their actions.
I disagree. Hamas hides behind civilians, human shields. There is no recourse to this other than to bomb them anyhow. What choice is there? Allow Hamas to freely operate so long as they have women and children to hide behind? nope, no war in history has allowed that.
The civilian casualties in Gaza are without doubt a record low for such a violent battlefield. The IDF is going "slow but steady" to keep civilian losses to a minimum because they KNOW all too well how international propaganda can undermine their capabilities. Make their government leaders wet themselves in fear of being scolded while Assad killed 220,000 of his own people without a whisper of condemnation.
In just 1 battle of WW2, Ortona, Canada attacked after the Germans had secretly reinforced. The ensuing 8 day bloodbath saw most of the town leveled & 1,300 civilian deaths out of a population of 10,000. 13% of civilians died. What's the rate in Gaza? 30K civilians out of 2M over 18 months? That's including those killed BY Hamas either accidentally or intentionally.
It gets uglier. Those children are specifically bred to serve as human shields and scouts. Very few of them manage to break away from the ideological brainwashing that takes place from the beginning of their lives.
Worst part? The UNRWA is involved in this wretched process.