| |
| ▲ | jojobas 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | >Because maybe in your mind you think they're savages/less civilized. No, rather because they want to use the international law to their advantage, not to their detriment. | | |
| ▲ | Grimblewald 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I would say that when you are being treated poorly in a way where laws exist protecting your right to demand better and realistically should be able to expect better, then using those laws is using them as intended. Sure it is to your advantage, however, the way you say it implies it is an unfair advantage, rather than simply trying to remove an unfairly applied disadvantage/detriment. Are you suggesting they should not try to use laws to protect themselves from genocide/displacement? | | |
| ▲ | jojobas 4 days ago | parent [-] | | This is not about genocide/displacement, this is about two attacks that have been assessed as targeting civilians or some such. Yes, I'd say a side that starts a conflict with an egregious assault on civilians should be limited in its right to use international law to stop a similarly or less illegal counterattack. In other words, if you attack someone with a knife you shouldn't be able to press charges for punches flying back. Or, at the very lease, not until the organizers and perpetrators of the initial atrocity are surrendered to that same court they are appealing to. | | |
| ▲ | Grimblewald 4 days ago | parent [-] | | You really think this protest exists in a vacuum, totally detached and isolated from the context of the broader Israeli led genocide against Palestinians? Ok. | | |
| ▲ | jojobas 4 days ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | aguaviva 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Using it to describe Israels effort to provide infrastructure, jobs, healthcare etc in the preceding decades is just insultingly wrong. No contradiction there. It's perfectly possible for the State of Israel to be nakedly and unapologetically engaging in a long-term campaign of ethnic cleansing (in the West Bank) and somewhat more convertly/discreetly so (in Gaza), while also, occasionally providing some measure of benefits to the affected population in certain narrow contexts. In fact, this is exactly how colonial occupations work. Or as Captain Willard put it (starting around 5:15): "It was a way we had over here of living with ourselves. We'd cut them in half with a machine gun, and then give them a Band-Aid. It was a lie."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0d4cZ3UMwoE | |
| ▲ | runarberg 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Israel has had the means of destroying all of Gaza and bulldozing the debris into the sea for decades. This is a really weak argument. Just because you have the means of a greater damage, that doesn’t absolve you of the damage you did cause. If I punch you in the face, I won’t be found not-guilty just because there was a fire extinguisher near by and in theory I could have caused a much greater harm. This argument is doubly bad because Israel has destroyed all of Gaza. Almost everybody who lives there has been displaced. Most of everyone’s house is damaged or destroyed, almost everybody know somebody that has died, or is seriously wounded. The entire health care system has collapsed, the entire public order has collapsed, and people are constantly hungry. This is a textbook example of the destruction of a place. > Even in this campaign they've been objectively trying to reduce civilian casualties despite it's detrimental effect on their military objective. They have not. There are evidence of a pattern of conduct of civilians being targeted and killed on a regular basis by the IDF. This includes x-rays of photos of children’s skulls that have been shot in the head by an Israeli sniper, the share number of civilians killed and the statistical unlikelyhood that all these civilians were killed merely by accident, the previously mentioned destruction of the healthcare system and public order, etc. All of this combined is more than enough evidence that Israel is intending to bring about the destruction of Gaza in order to make civilian life impossible. Using the word Genocide in the context is very appropriate and is being done by most experts on the matter, human rights organizations, international organizations, governments, etc. | | | |
| ▲ | netsharc 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Even in this campaign they've been objectively trying to reduce civilian casualties despite it's detrimental effect on their military objective. Puh-lease..! The ones wanting the genocide (yeah I say this deliberately) to end don't see it that way. At best you're delusional if you think they Israeli army benevolently cares, at worst you know this is a lie and you cynically don't care. Like you cynically just sum up overall casualty numbers as "just 1 year's worth of population growth". The official number is 40000. AFAIK that's the number of directly killed by American/European bombs dropped by the IDF, bullets or by a building collapsing on them because a bomb dropped nearby. The unofficial number (killed by lack of food, housing, sanitation) is a lot higher, e.g. 186000 up to July (1). That's 186000 seeds of future terrorists avowing revenge (hey if you, as someone of the pro-genocide camp, are "lucky", maybe entire communities get wiped out that no one is left to fester anger about their community members' unjust death. And somewhere in there is probably the genocide-doers' unsaid justification about killing babies (14 pages of the list of names and ages of victims of this war have the number "0" for their age, but hey "just 1 year's worth of population growth!") - the freshly born Palestinians "deserve" to be killed, because otherwise they are going to grow up hating the nation that killed 186000 members of their community anyway and bombed their country into the middle ages, why not kill them now?). 1) https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20240711-more-than-1... | | |
| ▲ | jojobas 4 days ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | aguaviva 4 days ago | parent [-] | | One can quibble about the technical definition of genocide, or the degree of intent on the part of the perpetrators. But I don't see how one can say that 40,000+ largely civilian deaths (including around 15k women, minors and elderly) -- likely to eventually grow to easily 3x that amount (even if the war were to stop today) due to the long-term health impacts of the overall situation, according to people who study these things -- isn't "making a dent" in the population. Unless one implicitly considers that population to be, well, kind of not really human to begin with. Just imagine someone saying: "The Oct 7th attack was kind of messy I guess, but really, you can't say it was genocidal -- after all, it didn't even make a dent in Jewish population." | | |
| ▲ | jojobas 4 days ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | aguaviva 4 days ago | parent [-] | | As a commander in chief of the IDF, what would have you done differently? Publically resign, denouncing my government's decades of bungling, hardheadedness and general heartlessness in the face of the situation that it has, in the scheme of things, largely created for itself. Ideally, also transferring as many incriminating documents, images/videos and datasets as possible to the ICC/ICJ and/or respected journalists as would be appropriate and helpful to the broader cause of building a just and lasting peace in the region. | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | para_parolu 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think the whole civilized/uncivilized spectrum is just “who has bigger gun” contest. | | |
| ▲ | salawat 4 days ago | parent [-] | | The essence of civility is having the means, motive, and opportunity to delete someone/something from the calculus of life with violence, and choosing not to do so. That is to say, anyone slaughtering one another have abandoned all pretense of civility. |
| |
| ▲ | 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | nujabe 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | Grimblewald 4 days ago | parent [-] | | raising a valid and logically sound critique of an argument is not like deflection at all, in fact it doesn't even come close to being similar, they're directly addressing the core argument. I think you might benefit from some time with a dictionary. | | |
| ▲ | nujabe 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I was responding directly to netshark’s comment, on the talking point one often hears that “nobody wants the Palestinians”. For some reason I didn’t even read the OP, but now that I’ve read it I can say my comment stands well and it is indeed deflection. The ICC has issued an arrest warrant against the Israeli PM for crimes against humanity, who could not have carried out those crimes without the support of Western powers. The fact that the ICC, in the face of tremendous pressure and threats from their own overseers, felt like the evidence on hand met the high bar to issue those warrants is the actual story, not whether Netanyahu will actually be arrested if he travels to Berlin. It’s true that Omar Al Bashir was also indicted by the ICC and still managed to travel freely around Arab countries. But he’s still a war criminal. So what is the point of the OP, that Netanyahu is not a war criminal because because ICC members selectively arrest ICC fugitives? Who cares? The story is he is a fugitive war criminal accused of war crimes and needs to be held accountable, whatever OP is getting at is indeed pure deflection. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | zer8k 5 days ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | ComputerGuru 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Haniyeh was a noncombatant and a political leader, living in a US-allied country with the blessing of the USA (and now the other political leaders have just moved to Turkey, a NATO member to boot). Being a noncombatant affiliated with a group that your country has deemed a terror organization does not, under international law, give you carte Blanche to assassinate them. | | | |
| ▲ | youngtaff 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Israel has been oppressing Palestinians for decades so it’s not really surprising that some portions of the Palestinian population is going to be ‘belligerent’ and commit horrific atrocities Of course when we talk about Hamas we also have to talk about how Israel encourage and supported it’s creation so that it would undermine Fatah There are people committing crimes against humanity on both sides, unfortunately it’s the innocents of the Palestinian population who bear most of the price (and of course those Israeli’s who were victims of Hamas on Oct 7th) | |
| ▲ | latentcall 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. | | | |
| ▲ | churchill 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Terrorism is defined as the use of violence in the pursuit of political aims. By that definition, the American founding fathers were terrorists. Hell, Jewish military & paramilitary groups like Irgun, Tzahal, Stern gang and Palmach were all terrorist gangs using force to establish the Jewish State and expel Palestinians from their homes. By that logic, America's drone strikes that killed hundreds of innocent bystanders in the Middle East were acts of terror. Do you want us to take your logic a bit further? | | |
| ▲ | slibhb 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Terrorism is defined as the use of violence in the pursuit of political aims. Using this definition, all war is terrorism. No one defines terrorism this broadly! > Hell, Jewish military & paramilitary groups like Irgun, Tzahal, Stern gang and Palmach were all terrorist gangs using force to establish the Jewish State and expel Palestinians from their homes. The Jewish paramilitary groups were terrorists! They staged terrorist attacks (i.e. against noncombatants). | | |
| ▲ | churchill 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Good. At least we can at agree on one point. Let's narrow it down to targeting civilians then: the "World's Most Moral Army" isn't less guilty. |
| |
| ▲ | 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
