I think you're being quite naive, though perhaps that logic will work for some soldiers who are still very new to the horrors of war and will probably at least temporarily need to insulate themselves from their actions, but if you're using an explosive you ought to have an realistic idea of what effect it will have if you use it near or in an apartment block.
Whether the intent is to kill babies or the user of such weaponry is indifferent to killing babies is such a thin distinctive line that as far as I'm concerned it doesn't exist.
Uh, they both are crimes. The Israeli pilot knows perfectly well that their weaponry cannot possibly target just the rocket team and if they fire a missile or tear up the place with a cannon, there is going to be collateral damage. There is also the question of what happens if the ordnance goes off course.
Read point 2.iv and tell me that's not an argument absolutely riddled with loopholes.
According to the Israeli government and the likes of Hamas, this war is 100% necessary. The problem is, their both fighting in their own back yards; there's no no-man's land except that with which they create by eradicating civilian communities. Many "valid military targets" are neatly and purposefully wrapped in civilian resources, and both sides are convinced that targeting them is a valid means to an end even though there is at least one alternative.
Any practical definition of a war crime is mostly relative to the conditions of the war and what political will there is to pursue the crime, and is probably by several orders of magnitude the most poorly enforced crime in existence.
Last edited: