i don't care what moral or legal context you personally are looking at the situation from. for the purposes of this conversation i don't even care whether Israel meets the criteria of mens rea. the only reason i brought it up in the first place is so you would stop equivocating on the word "intent."
you just wrote a bunch of shit to refuse to acknowledge the basic point: if you ask me "what exactly separates Israel from Hamas," the answer is intent. with that information alone, Hamas can be immediately condemned. that's why it's different.
and more importantly, moral reasoning, the intent to harm civilians, whether direct or through recklessness
nevermind, you're equivocating again. establishing reckless behavior does not establish intent. intent, along with recklessness, are simply criteria of mens rea. in fact, under mens rea, intentional behavior is typically more harshly punished than reckless behavior specifically because they are not morally equivalent.
1
u/[deleted] Nov 14 '23 edited Oct 29 '24
[deleted]