[Bonded]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I agree there is a difference, but I don’t know. It’s really a case of whether you think “the ends justifies the means” and what you think the end is for each. Hamas’ goal was not simply to murder babies, that was just the horrific means they sought to complete their goal. If Hamas wanted to kill babies as an end, there are plenty of babies to kill in Gaza. Much like Israel’s goal is not to murder babies, it’s just an acceptable result to them. Is cutting off a baby’s head more barbaric than knowingly dropping a bomb on one? No. Not to me, at least.

At best, you can say Israel does not intend to kill children but it is prepared to do so and will do so to achieve its ends. That Hamas chooses to kill children and Israel makes choices that kill children. And, so long as the ends are good or can be justified, people will cheer them on.

Either way, I imagine a parent holding their dead infant and what that person would be going through, and I think it’s the same whether they are Israeli or Palestinian. It’s easy enough for us to talk about the “difference” here, but would anyone stand in front of two parents holding their dead child and tell them one was justified and the other wasn’t? One was barbaric, and the other wasn’t? One was for the greater good, and the other was for nothing? I don’t know.

On a high level the loss of life is the same and terrible but there is a difference between collateral damage and intentional targeting of innocent infants directly. When Israel resorts to chemical and biological weapons that specifically target civilians than your argument will hold more weight.