But I don’t agree with those who believe that (say) the US invasion of Normandy can be justified, but this invasion cannot be justified. Both involved immense civilian suffering.
Hamas did not invade Israel. What are you talking about? They didn’t try to take over territory. They committed an act of terrorism, not an act of war.
A missile strike is a legitimate casus belli. If you’re not a pacifist, that means it justifies force to achieve a military objective, which necessarily justifies killing civilians.
Whether that’s “countless” or a few depends on the objective.
If you’re a pacifist, I can respect that.
But I don’t agree with those who believe that (say) the US invasion of Normandy can be justified, but this invasion cannot be justified. Both involved immense civilian suffering.
The invasion of Normandy was not what started the war. The war started when the Nazis invaded Poland.
And the storming of Normandy beach did not involve the deaths of civilians.
This war started when Hamas invaded Israel.
And the invasion of Normandy did not end on the beach.
Hamas did not invade Israel. What are you talking about? They didn’t try to take over territory. They committed an act of terrorism, not an act of war.
Distinction without difference, it’s a casus belli either way.
Of course there’s a difference. An invasion is about seizing territory.
An attack is a casus belli even without seizing territory.
For example, if Putin launched missiles at Warsaw or DC, he would start a war. It makes no difference if any territory is taken.
I see, and that will justify killing countless Russian children in your opinion?
A missile strike is a legitimate casus belli. If you’re not a pacifist, that means it justifies force to achieve a military objective, which necessarily justifies killing civilians.
Whether that’s “countless” or a few depends on the objective.