Reply #186: You understand the problem everyone has with that deduction though, right?

[Shaktimaan]

What you're saying is that the outcome is the only thing that matters; that intent has nothing to do with anything. But realistically there is a tremendous difference between collateral damage and terrorism. Every legal system on the planet takes intent into account when determining whether a death constitutes an accident or a murder. In war, innocent people are often killed. But where the responsibility for those deaths falls depends greatly upon the details. The rules of war draw distinctions between different circumstances in order to reduce suffering. They matter.

If Hamas' actions could be considered self-defensive in any way, shape or form, then there might be a stronger argument for moral equivalency. Same thing if Israel's actions lacked a clear defensive purpose. Or if Israel had never given the Palestinians opportunities to resolve the conflict diplomatically. But none of these happen to be the case. It is not Israel's responsibility to ensure that this conflict never touches civilians. There are guidelines which Israel follows. (Alone I might add.)

an example...

Both FDR and George W Bush involved their country in an overseas war. Soldiers died in both cases... many more during WWII than are dying now. Does that mean that WWII was the moral equivalent of Gulf War II? Was FDR actually less moral in fighting WWII than Bush is in fighting GWII because so many more Americans died then compared to now? Is it really that simple?

Or does context matter too?