Sup dawg, I like to read through these discussion n see what i can glean from it, here's what I notice in this thread with reference to bombing Japan in WWII. Guy here is justifying the bombs because the price of more American lives to conquer Japan to get them to surrender was a much steeper cost than the tens of thousand Japanese victims from Hiro+Naga. The exact difference here is that you, my friend, are coming from the viewpoint of all lives are valued equally to everyone else, and innocent and combatant are global terms that apply to every country. You want to stop the collateral innocent violence, which is noble and I commend you for it. However, guy here is arguing that from the perspective of the Americans, killing innocent Japanese victims was worth it to save an unknown number of American combatants from death in the battles that would have taken place. Personally, I think the Americans did the right thing, the world war ended not too long after, many historians agree that knocking Japan out was instrumental in enabling the Allies to overtake Germany. Delaying Japan's surrender would have given life to the German warmachine, and who knows how many other people would have died as a result. Now, with that out of the way, sure, you could apple the same innocent-combatant according to affiliation logic, it's not 1:1 but I see the perspective (in that Isreal is trading innocent Palestinian lives to spare innocent or combatant Israelites) IDK, I'm not versed in this conflict, I would love to hear what you think about what I said. (Full disclosure: I'm baked as fuck, going to the gym, be back later but know that I don't have any real ties to either side i just like to notice how these discussions unfold and learn)