Israeli troops are fighting with Hamas militants on the edges of Gaza City, as the Palestinian death toll rises above 9,000. U.S. and Arab leaders are raising pressure on Israel to ease its siege and at least briefly halt its attacks in order to aid civilians.
I suspect both would absolutely be considered acceptable collateral damage, that is consistent with Israel’s previous Hannibal Directive, and IDF forces mortared their own Kibbutzes and bases to hit Hamas targets during the Oct 7 attack.
Interesting you presume Israel and its supporters are motivated by racism, it seems obvious to me Israel’s motivation is regarding safety. Meanwhile, the other side of this conflict is explicitly genocidal.
I’m not asking what Israel considers acceptable collateral damage, I’m asking what individuals consider acceptable collateral damage. Note that also no where in my post I presumed Israel and it’s supporters, my questions were balanced both sides and I let open which one you would find acceptable. For me personally, collateral damage on either side is not acceptable.
If you consider both sides acceptable collateral damage, congratulations you are not a racist. However, you could question your value for human life in general.
Because your question format was, “is it acceptable … if Israel bombs them?” I thought it was posed to be from the perspective of the actor making that call, apologies if I was presumptive.
War in general devalues human life, throws lives into the furnace for political ends. Given the tactics employed in this war, not letting human shields and hostages be viable and diminishing their value seems like the least terrible option, and it is quite terrible. It’s the same principle as not negotiating with hostage-takers.