https://www.newsweek.com/insane-number-gen-zers-support-hamass-slaughter-innocent-israelis-opinion-1837422
We should stop and discourage using the word 'innocent' in these discussions.
The wrongness of killing an unarmed person, or bombing someone's home, or rape, or ethnic cleansing, or racist discrimination, or dehumanizing discourse, is not conditioned upon the 'innocence' of the victims.
At the same time, true 'innocence', or even 'civilianity' (to paraphrase one infamous ghoul), is in extremely short supply in Israel.
If we feel horror at the most brutal moments of the Palestinian armed resistance, it cannot be because those killed, injured, or otherwise hurt or frightened are innocent. It has to be because overwhelming brutality is horrifying no matter who it targets. But if we take that seriously, it's undeniable that the Israeli patterns and policies of massively disproportionate response and collective punishment— never mind the founding crimes of the Israeli state— are horrors of a much, much greater magnitude than individual, particularly brutal incidents of Palestinian vengeance.
In this context, the concept of innocence serves, on the one hand:
Under such framing, the primary aggressor and oppressor in an asymmetric conflict becomes the innocent, passive victim. At the same time, framing 'innocent Palestinians' as collateral damage transforms the primary effect of bombing an apartment building into something secondary, a mere side effect.
The concept of 'innocence' serves only to obscure the moral and political realities here. So reject it and correct it when it comes up in discussion of the Israeli occupation of Palestine and Palestinian resistance to occupation and ethnic cleansing.
[Thoughts have been brewing for a while, but making a post was inspired by this thread on Hexbear, in which moral uprightness or goodness is deployed to similar effect as the concept of innocence.]
@bestagoner
@hexbear.net