I don’t even know what you think my logic is beyond “the more innocent people you kill, the less morally justified your position becomes.”
Can you give an example of when that is not the case? Because I don’t know too many people who think that the bombing of Dresden was morally justified.
You can target military objectives like certain infrastructure to disable it, but you’re not allowed to target civilians. The rules of war just says when civilian casualties aren’t punishable. You have to take measures to ensure attacks are as precise as you can make them and with as little collateral damage as possible.
“eliminate every human because they might be an enemy” is not a valid military objective.
That’s true, you cannot target civilians. But you can destroy a military objective even if you know it will kill civilians. Per ICC:
Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur.
“Eliminate every human” is not a valid objective, but “eliminate Hamas” is.
If their objective is to destroy Hamas and they determine that the only way to do that is wipe out the Palestinian people from the face of the Earth, you’re saying that’s justified because it’s their necessary military objective?
Necessary according to their military capabilities, which can be judged by observers.
Most observers don’t think destroying Hamas requires wiping out all Palestinians, but at the same time it’s impossible to destroy Hamas without civilian casualties.
Nop. I’m contesting your logic. Not comparing the countries. We are examining whether your logic holds up to scrutiny.
I don’t even know what you think my logic is beyond “the more innocent people you kill, the less morally justified your position becomes.”
Can you give an example of when that is not the case? Because I don’t know too many people who think that the bombing of Dresden was morally justified.
Ok, so if Hamas kills more people that automatically makes Israel’s actions justified?
If it was proportional? If it didn’t involve innocents? Yes.
Is there any war-ever in history- that didn’t involve civilian casualties? Any?
Is there any war ever in history that all actions on either are morally justified?
In war, you are allowed to kill innocents if necessary to achieve a valid military objective.
In this war, the IDF’s objective is to destroy Hamas.
You’re not allowed to target civilians at all.
You can target military objectives like certain infrastructure to disable it, but you’re not allowed to target civilians. The rules of war just says when civilian casualties aren’t punishable. You have to take measures to ensure attacks are as precise as you can make them and with as little collateral damage as possible.
“eliminate every human because they might be an enemy” is not a valid military objective.
That’s true, you cannot target civilians. But you can destroy a military objective even if you know it will kill civilians. Per ICC:
“Eliminate every human” is not a valid objective, but “eliminate Hamas” is.
“Allowed” by whom? “Necessary” by whose metric?
If their objective is to destroy Hamas and they determine that the only way to do that is wipe out the Palestinian people from the face of the Earth, you’re saying that’s justified because it’s their necessary military objective?
Allowed by international law.
Necessary according to their military capabilities, which can be judged by observers.
Most observers don’t think destroying Hamas requires wiping out all Palestinians, but at the same time it’s impossible to destroy Hamas without civilian casualties.