I see what you are saying but I'm not sure that I understand the importance of the distinction. The argument I'm seeing on the other side is that Israel had to do something to respond and to try and stop the attacks and that the choices they made represent the least harmful set of choices (warning about attacks, using a targeted air assault instead of a ground assault, etc). That does not change the fact that there were deaths as a result of the choices but does provide a context for arguing that they were the more responsible choices, the more moral choices.
Is your concern that by arguing that Israel took the more responsible set of choices that many people are taking it too far, mentally, and using that argument to say that Israel's actions are immune from criticism and are devaluing the innocent lives lost on the Palestinian side? Judah On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: > > I never claimed what that Israel's response was not justified (and I am > still not saying whether or not I think it is), rather that Israel should > not be absolved of any civilian deaths as a result of their counter-attack > solely because they warned people ahead of time. > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > I get what you and Scott are saying, but what is Israel supposed to do? > > They are having a rather large number of missiles fired at them. Some of > > them to parts of Israel that no one thought they could reach. A ground > > force would be a huge escalation and the potential house to house combat > > could easily end up with as many civilians killed as air assault, though > > Hamas weapons might do more of the killing in that case. And there would > be > > a great many more Israeli deaths. > > > > I absolutely do not believe that the aerial assault is the right thing to > > do on the part of Israel. But I also don't see what other options they > have > > at this point. They should have gone down a very different political > route > > well before this round of escalation, but they didn't. I fault them for > > that. But at this point, they are being attacked and I don't see a way to > > respond that does not incur significant civilian casualties because the > > legitimate targets (the ones firing the missiles) are mixed into a dense > > civilian population. > > > > Short of a cease fire that both sides can agree to, this is just going to > > play out as a tragedy on both sides. > > > > Judah > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:15 AM, Vivec <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > ᧠> > > Yeah. > > > > > > After demolishing buildings, slaughtering entire families...they call a > > > cease fire. > > > > > > right. > > > > > > I stand by my view that it should never have happened in the first > place. > > > Use of force on that scale,and with so many civilian casualties should > > > never be justified. > > > > > > On 15 July 2014 10:06, LRS Scout <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > So over night the Israelis took part in a cease fire organized by > > Egypt. > > > > > > > > Hamas chose not to take part and fired 50 additional missiles > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:371559 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
