The difference is that the incidental harm has been done by just one side - the Israelis. The harm perpetrated by HAMAS was deliberate, barbaric, and intended to inflict the most agony on the most innocents as possible.
Yes, I know. And don't for a moment misunderstand me that I think there is some sort of moral equivalence between the atrocity Hamas committed on October 7 and what Israel is doing to defend itself.
But, hang with me a minute. I'm trying to get us somewhere. First, what I mean by "incidental harm", in this context, is the harm caused in pursuit of a goal.
Hamas (and Palestinians, generally) are willing to tolerate a significant level of incidental harm in every direction. Incidental harm that they perpetrate, incidental harm that is perpetrated upon them. That is WHY they commit the types of attacks that they do. That is why they "resist" using terror. They understand that their actions will cause harm, both to innocents Israelis and to their own innocents. They find that incidental harm, at least thus far, entirely acceptable. That is nothing more than the cost of resistance.
Israelis are extremely intolerant of ANY incidental harm perpetrated against them. Their willingness to mitigate harm to one of their own is LEGENDARY. 1027 convicted, violent criminals in exchange for ONE soldier. Israelis are also quite intolerant of incidental harm that they perpetrate on innocents. No where near their intolerance of harm to their own, but still significantly intolerant. (And yes, this is also influenced by international scrutiny).
The argument I am trying to poke at for people, generally, in the West, is that of: How much incidental harm are you willing to tolerate? How do you measure incidental harm? And, do you apply the same standards to both sides?
