The revelation (which I would have kind of expected) that the 3 former Israeli hostages shot by the IDF in Gaza were “bare chested and carrying a white flag when they were shot” should surprise no one.
The price you pay for being willing to shoot unarmed combatants (or non-combatants) is you might shoot your own hostages by mistake. I have yet to see this extremely obvious point being made in the mainstream media.
Of course this is a horrible tragedy. But will it make them rethink their bloodbath?
For the record; I find Hamas’ willingness to shoot unarmed non-combatants very sad and also morally wrong. I can see the argument that the massacres of the oppressed are more justified than the massacres of the oppressors, but I don’t really buy it, because the only actual justification for killing anyone is self-defence. *
* – On a philosophical note; this is simply a principle which I accept. Possibly because I was taught it. Maybe because it seems to make sense if we apply the categorical imperative; if everyone truly accepted this principle, there would, in theory, be no war; though in practice it is of course more complicated because of the ‘security dilemma’; the other side is tooled up, I don’t know their intentions, perhaps I should attack them now before they attack me; that is, states often attack others thinking it is in ‘self-defence’. I don’t really have a coherent philosophical argument on which to found normative principles. But acting in a spirit of peace so as to create peace seems like a good principle to have. (I’m a Buddhist so maybe I could say practising this will bring me closer to dhamma, but that is not the same as a principle in the sense of Western philosophy).