3 ms·

"War crimes" are not bad/tragic things that are occurring. War crimes require specific intent to say kill civilians. the laws of war acknowledge that civilians

"War crimes" are not bad/tragic things that are occurring. War crimes require specific intent to say kill civilians. the laws of war acknowledge that civilians will die during war. The death of a civilian is not in and of itself a war crime. Calling things war crimes in a factual manner when one doesn't have any ability to know what is occurring, is problematic. why? because one is making the argument that Israel is explicitly intending to target and kill civilians. If one is wrong about that, it's the equivalent of a blood libel. As a simple example: if on average 1 in every 10,000 smart bombs would have a defect (i.e. a very small percentage) that turns it into a dumb bomb. One is lucky when that defective bomb doesn't kill any non targets. However, even if it it caused as massive tragic loss of life (as world media tried to pin on Israel for the self inflicted Hospital bombing), that accident is not a war crime. There is no intent, and using smart bombs (i.e. more expensive and more accurate) is in general proof that they were not acting recklessly. Of course, if one believes Israel's entire existence is a "crime", then none of this matters to those people, because Israel's entire existence is a "crime" and even if they would only kill "combatants" without 0 civilian deaths, they would still view those deaths as "war crimes" (in the sense that if you're committing a crime, you can't claim self defense if your kill someone who is trying to stop you with physical force). I would argue that those who view Israel's existence as a "crime" are in general antisemites.

ah27182 3y ago
You cant run away from the crime of killing civilians by just chalking it up to “intention” or “the cost of war”. That’s called collective punishment and yes, that is a war crime. If you have an issue with people making these claims without context, then here’s the UN itself calling out war crimes for both sides: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/israeloccupied-palestinian-territory-un-experts-deplore-attacks-civilians#:~:text=GENEVA%20(12%20October%202023)%20–,devastating%20impacts%20on%20the%20whole https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/israeloccupi...
- compsciphd 3y ago
  read what they wrote. let's take their examples: “We also strongly condemn Israel’s indiscriminate military attacks against the already exhausted Palestinian people of Gaza, comprising over 2.3 million people, nearly half of whom are children. They have lived under unlawful blockade for 16 years, and already gone through five major brutal wars, which remain unaccounted for,” they said. the experts are making the claim that Israel's attacks are indiscriminate. They do not have the ability to make that claim. I would argue making that claim as fact already undermines their "impartiality". In fact, it's well known that their are not impartial in general. As one can see from the report they quickly put out on the "hospital bombing" https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/gaza-un-experts-decry-bombing-hospitals-and-schools-crimes-against-humanity https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/gaza-un-expe... they are not a useful source. They repeatedly make claims of fact that they have zero ability to determine if true or not. For those that believe the IDF has zero credibility, one has to also believe they don't. The experts quoted have no desire for the truth, as demonstrated by zero desire to correct themselves when they are shown to be spreading falsehoods.
  - ah27182 3y ago
    I recommend you give it a full read as they explain (with examples) why they believe these acts are indiscriminate. Regardless, the ex-ceo of WebSummit has made comments similar to what the UN is stating. I don’t see why that’s a cancellable offense or antisemitic. I suspect his connections to Qatar are what got him in real trouble.
    - compsciphd 3y ago
      they might believe they are, but they are stating as fact. They don't qualify their remarks. And we know this from the link I shared where they talk about the hospital "bombing" as fact as what you would call "examples", which we now are generally accepting as false. That alone removes any of their credibility. They report as fact things they do not know to be true, but only believe to be true, and even when we know that their "truth" is false, they don't correct themselves.
  - stephen_g 3y ago

ah27182 3y ago

You cant run away from the crime of killing civilians by just chalking it up to “intention” or “the cost of war”. That’s called collective punishment and yes, that is a war crime. If you have an issue with people making these claims without context, then here’s the UN itself calling out war crimes for both sides: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/israeloccupied-palestinian-territory-un-experts-deplore-attacks-civilians#:~:text=GENEVA%20(12%20October%202023)%20–,devastating%20impacts%20on%20the%20whole https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/israeloccupi...

compsciphd 3y ago
read what they wrote. let's take their examples: “We also strongly condemn Israel’s indiscriminate military attacks against the already exhausted Palestinian people of Gaza, comprising over 2.3 million people, nearly half of whom are children. They have lived under unlawful blockade for 16 years, and already gone through five major brutal wars, which remain unaccounted for,” they said. the experts are making the claim that Israel's attacks are indiscriminate. They do not have the ability to make that claim. I would argue making that claim as fact already undermines their "impartiality". In fact, it's well known that their are not impartial in general. As one can see from the report they quickly put out on the "hospital bombing" https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/gaza-un-experts-decry-bombing-hospitals-and-schools-crimes-against-humanity https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/gaza-un-expe... they are not a useful source. They repeatedly make claims of fact that they have zero ability to determine if true or not. For those that believe the IDF has zero credibility, one has to also believe they don't. The experts quoted have no desire for the truth, as demonstrated by zero desire to correct themselves when they are shown to be spreading falsehoods.
- ah27182 3y ago
  I recommend you give it a full read as they explain (with examples) why they believe these acts are indiscriminate. Regardless, the ex-ceo of WebSummit has made comments similar to what the UN is stating. I don’t see why that’s a cancellable offense or antisemitic. I suspect his connections to Qatar are what got him in real trouble.
  - compsciphd 3y ago
    they might believe they are, but they are stating as fact. They don't qualify their remarks. And we know this from the link I shared where they talk about the hospital "bombing" as fact as what you would call "examples", which we now are generally accepting as false. That alone removes any of their credibility. They report as fact things they do not know to be true, but only believe to be true, and even when we know that their "truth" is false, they don't correct themselves.
- stephen_g 3y ago