The difference between good guys and bad guys in this world: They kill civilians because they’re evil. We — our armies and allies — kill civilians with the purest of intentions.
Sounds ridiculous, right?
Sunday in the New York Times, Nicholas Kristof made the case that whatever Israel’s intentions in the war on Gaza, it has committed too much slaughter and needs to rein in the destruction.
This is a good thing to say, and I’m glad to say, but I admittedly got caught short on what I think is a reflexive thing that happens in American media when talking about civilian casualties we — or our friends — inflict: We try to soften to blow of all that death with our good intentions, or at least the lack of bad intentions.
Over the years, I’ve covered many bloody wars and written scathingly about how governments in Russia, Sudan and Syria recklessly bombed civilians. This time, it’s different: My government is on the side engaged in what President Biden has referred to as “indiscriminate bombing.” This is not the same as deliberately targeting civilians, as those other countries did — but this time, as a taxpayer, I’m helping to pay for the bombs.
To the civilians and their families on the receiving end of a bomb, of course, it doesn’t much matter whether that bomb came via direct intention or was an oopsie committed in a war against the real enemy. My dead loved one is my dead loved one, no matter what.
Kristof knows this, of course. As he points out: Israel might not be “deliberately targeting civilians” — but it’s not exactly avoiding great harms to them, either. “Israel, traumatized by the attack it suffered, elected to retaliate with 2,000-pound bombs, destroy entire neighborhoods and allow only a trickle of aid into the territory, which is now teetering on the brink of famine,” he writes. “The upshot is that this does not feel like a war on Hamas but rather a war on Gazans.”
If it feels that way, maybe it is.
Anyway, I've long been struck by our collective ability to try to wash away the sins of war by convincing ourselves of our own good intentions. Yes, we destroyed the hamlet in order to save it — but we were trying to save it! The logic is almost always absurd.
A few months ago, a Sacramento attorney answered a question on the difference between “depraved heart murder” and “involuntary manslaughter.” His answer, I think was instructive.
Depraved heart murder, also known as "reckless indifference" murder, involves a level of extreme recklessness or indifference to human life that leads to death. It typically involves actions that create a high risk of death, even if the perpetrator did not intend to kill anyone. For example, if someone engages in extremely reckless driving that results in a fatal car accident, they could be charged with depraved heart murder.
Involuntary manslaughter, on the other hand, involves the unintentional killing of another person without malice aforethought or premeditation. This can occur as a result of negligence or recklessness, but without the extreme indifference to human life that characterizes depraved heart murder. For example, if someone accidentally kills another person while driving under the influence of alcohol, they could be charged with involuntary manslaughter.
Peacetime civilian law and wartime criminal law are two different things, of course. But using these guidelines somewhat loosely: What Israel is doing in Gaza isn’t the involuntary manslaughter of civilians. It’s depraved heart murder of civilians.
Here’s where I tell you that I hold no brief whatsoever for Hamas. Damn them for launching their attack of mass murder and rape on October 7. And damn them if they reject the ceasefire proposal sitting in their laps right now, though hopefully it won’t come to that.
That I have to say that — I don’t like the bad guys either! — makes me sympathetic to what Kristof is doing when he assures us that Israel isn’t deliberately targeting civilians. He’s trying to persuade the persuadable here, and you start that process by telling the intended audience that they’re not the bad guys even if what they’re doing right now is bad.
I get it.
But a lot of bad wars are started and sustained because we’re convinced of the purity of our intentions, believe implicitly that the warm feelings in our heart can make all that blood and fire somehow seem less disastrous — believe implicitly that at the very least, maybe we should be welcomed with gratitude, as liberators.
So let’s not kid ourselves. “Israel and America have agency,” Kristof writes, “and the atrocities suffered by Israeli civilians do not justify the leveling of Palestinian neighborhoods.” He’s right.
What I’m watching
My wife and I first watched William Friedkin’s under-seen 1977 movie, “Sorcerer,” shortly after his death last year. We live now in an era where everything is green screen and CGI. This movie — shot on location, about four desperate men delivering a fragile shipment of dynamite through the Central American jungle to put out an oil well fire — is just so real. Sweaty. Squalid and dirty. Something that will make you squeal out loud with the suspense. My local arthouse theater showed it on the big screen this weekend. It’s still great. Maybe one of my favorite movies ever.
Sorry my friend I can’t get behind you on this one. While I understand your point (dead is dead irrespective of intent), INTENT MATTERS. The entirety of our criminal justice system is built upon this notion. A drunk driver and a serial killer both kill someone. But there is a difference between the two. Someone who cannot form intent (child, mental instability or mental deficiency, etc) are also judged differently under this auspice. INTENT MATTERS
Collateral damage deaths are different than deliberately targeted deaths, which are different than deliberately targeted deaths that are killed in horrific manners (raped to death or tortured to death, etc). There is a continuum here. A spectrum.
As to Israel, while we can certainly judge the tactics they use, those implying they shouldn’t attack Hamas, get a fucking clue. No nation on earth would allow a hostile entity like this who has sworn to destroy them, and actively attacked them in the most horrific of ways (not only deliberately targeting civilians (including children) but doing it in the most horrific ways to sow terror and hatred). That is not a sustainable paradigm. And it’s Hamas who is refusing to allow its people to flee, to use the bomb shelters and tunnels they built with the billions of dollars they’ve received in aid over the decades. It’s them using their own people as human shields. To Hamas, it’s win/win. The good Muslims die in jihad, which means they go straight to the bosom of Allah instead of waiting like Muslims who die outside of jihad and must be judged. The “bad” Muslims go to hell, just as Allah wants. They can make no mistakes with this kind of mindset. It’s heads I win tails you lose.
And people eat it up, just like Hamas wants. It’s hard to feel anything other than rage and sadness when you see children’s bodies being drug out of bombed out structures. But to Hamas? It’s a pure win.
This is asymmetrical warfare taken to a new level. How do you, as a soldier or cop or security officer, deal with people, including women and children, in a humane way who may be a walking fucking bomb. Every single person you encounter in this conflict may well be a human bomb, ready and willing to blow themselves up.
This is the mindset that Israel must contest with - one willing and anxious to not only sacrifice their own people as human shields, but to use them as walking and talking bombs. They want to maximize casualties, even on their own side.
Whereas the other side broadcasts warnings and leaflets telling civilians to get out. They actively try to minimize casualties, however imperfectly.
If one can’t spot a moral difference between the two sides here, I’m not sure what to say.
I honestly don't see how it can be argued that they aren't targeting civilians. It's not like there is an actual military there for them to target; apartment blocks are not government buildings. It's like the allies' firebombing of Dresden or the A bombs dropped on Japan. There's just no way you can target a civilian population center and claim you're not targeting civilians.