Inadvertent Killing?

While I appreciated the thoughts in the Letters section of your November 2-9 edition, a couple of thoughts came to mind after reading “Unhinged Apologists“:

Lou Segal writes, “To say the inadvertent killing of civilians (by Israelis) because a terror group uses them as human shields is morally equivalent to the intentional murders of more than a thousand (1,400) people is an outrage.” To suggest the widespread killing by Israelis of Gaza civilians (which will certainly pass 10x the amount of Israelis slaughtered by Hamas) is largely inadvertent is just silly and self-defeating. If you are looking for Israel to claim the moral high ground by acknowledging Israel’s military (and criminal leader Bibi) treat the vast majority of Gaza civilian dead as “collateral damage,” that’s fair, and go for it.

After stating a ceasefire would not be a good idea and would amount to approval of Hamas’s monstrous behavior, the writer goes on: “They must explain how a ceasefire would be any different than the one in effect before the awful events of October 7.” Fair question. It would not, except Israel’s military etc. would now once again be paying attention to the Gaza border, unlike in the weeks prior to the horrible events of October 7. When Israel pays close attention, its citizens are so confident in their safety from attack, that they, for example, schedule a Music Festival next to the Gaza border.

My question is: how does piling up thousands upon thousands of innocent Gaza civilians over the course of the next few months effect positive change?

Howz’about (of course it will almost assuredly never happen) a two-generation (50 years) Occupation of Israel and its neighbors by a multi-national peacekeeping force? Clearly Israel and its neighboring areas have chosen not to get along, and have proven themselves incapable of peacefully co-existing as anything approaching equals. Just perhaps, a 50-year Occupation of the Region may help.