Reply #49: I'm not missing any point. [View All]

[Shaktimaan]

Correct me if I am wrong, but you are drawing a moral equivalence between modern Palestinian terrorism and this particular bombing, right? I'll explain why there is a tremendous difference between the two.

"Who gives a shit if they phoned first or "timed" it such that "less people" would be there. Bombs kill people."

Yes, they do kill people. Which is precisely why it is important that they took precautions to try and prevent casualties. That doesn't make setting off a bomb OK, especially if there's a fuck-up and 91 people die as a result. The Irgun is responsible for those deaths, they caused them. No one questions that.

But there's a simple difference that's impossible to escape from. The Hotel bombing deaths were an unintended consequence that the Irgun did not want and took pains to avoid. Obviously they did not try hard enough, but that's besides the point I'm making here. Hamas, by comparison, takes pains to maximize the death tolls. Setting off a bomb to destroy property and make a political statement is not the same thing as setting off a bomb to try and kill innocent people.

It's the difference between manslaughter and murder. Motive and actions matter, both in terms of ethics and the law. And in practical terms there's a big difference in the amount of suffering caused. If the Irgun had a Hamas motive instead of their own and instead tried to bomb the hotel in order to kill as many people as possible then the death toll would probably be far higher than 91. Just as IDF precautions to limit civilian casualties are anything but foolproof, no one would say that they are irrelevant or pointless.

Do you honestly not see the difference between groups who see deaths as a success and those who see them as a tragedy?