3 ms·

> blatant war crime apologia is by saying that Israel wasn't targeting civilians specifically (as if they would admit it lol) so that's fine! Umm, that's liter

> blatant war crime apologia is by saying that Israel wasn't targeting civilians specifically (as if they would admit it lol) so that's fine! Umm, that's literally what distinguishes whether or not it is a war crime*? Not saying you need to take israeli claims at face value - but if one side accuses the other side of a crime, and the other side says they didn't do it, generally the burden is on the first side to provide proof. Saying it doesn't matter whether or not they actually did it isn't the right response. * technically its more complex than that. There are times where it could still be a war crime even if civilians weren't targeted specificly. What matters more is the balance between military benefit vs civilian damage.*

mardifoufs 3y ago
Yes, but cutting off water and supplies while explicitly declaring that they will turn the city to rubble... while at the same time claiming that the attacks are targeted and proportional is a thing that only a western ally could get away with. Russia pays complete lip service to always trying to make it look like they don't attack civilians (they do) yet are unequivocally accused of war crimes (as they should be). It got to a point where Israeli officials had no problem publically declaring thinly veiled threats of extermination like: >On October 10th an Israeli official told a television station: “Gaza will eventually turn into a city of tents. There will be no buildings.” Daniel Hagari, an idf spokesperson, boasted that “hundreds of tons of bombs” had been dropped on Gaza. Then, he added: “the emphasis is on damage and not on accuracy.” Again, only a western ally could get away with this with such a massive support at all level from all western countries after such statements.