3 ms·

> Like, what is really the point of your comment Basically that what matters are international norms rather than international laws, and while Israel is plainl

> Like, what is really the point of your comment Basically that what matters are international norms rather than international laws, and while Israel is plainly breaking international laws, it's less clear that they're breaking international norms.

catlover76 3y ago
That's a somewhat fair thing to point out, but it's also a bit thick to think that what people find so objectionable about Israel's retaliation is that it breaks international law or norms or any other such standard. It's about the basic morality of its imposition of collective punishment on the population of Gaza, while of course its population rages incandescently on the collective punishment Hamas sought to inflict on them, and stuff like that. Collective punishment is rarely a moral answer. Luckily, in this thread, we seem to have no people who are deranged enough to approve of Hamas's attack. But we do have people deranged enough to approve of Israel's response and who want everyone to think that when a Palestinian is killed, it's either a lie, or just tough, just collateral damage, but that when an Israeli is killed, it justifies the killing and further dispossession of hundreds and thousands of Palestinians in recompense.
- nwiswell 3y ago
  I entirely agree, and I feel moreover that it's the moral obligation of the United States to use our substantial foreign policy influence with Israel to compel a more humane treatment of Palestinians. Nevertheless when people point out that this is a "genocide" or that Israel is committing "war crimes" I wonder what point is actually being made. If it wasn't against international law, would that make it ok to collectively punish Palestine? I certainly don't think it would. At some level it just feels like weaponization of language, or at the very least like lazy thinking. One party is breaking laws, and breaking laws is bad, so that party is bad. But that logic would've applied to the USA in WWII, so as far as I'm concerned it's not at all elucidating.
  - catlover76 3y ago
    People can make an argument that it is a genocide, and there is a reasonable defense that it is not. If, based on the facts, it doesn't seem to you like a genocide, then that's fine, but it's not like there is no rational basis for those assertions. With war crimes, I recall there being some specific evidence thereof, potentially from the UN. It was brought up during PMQs in Ireland, I think. > But that logic would've applied to the USA in WWII, so as far as I'm concerned it's not at all elucidating. I think most of us: a) Do not think this should prevent us from calling a spade a spade; b) In any event, can see quite a few differences between the two situations, such as the relative power disparity between the 2 sides in the middle east, the fact that Germany had taken over or was engaged in active hostilities with...most of Europe, etc. Maybe the US was wrong to bomb Dresden; maybe it was a war crime, and maybe it could have won the war without doing that, and without dropping atomic bombs. But that doesn't mean we have to hesitate before calling out similar crimes in the future just because we live in the US.
    - nwiswell 3y ago
      > In any event, can see quite a few differences between the two situations, such as the relative power disparity between the 2 sides in the middle east, the fact that Germany had taken over or was engaged in active hostilities with...most of Europe, etc. But this is exactly my point. The moral imperative was clear in WWII, but the same pejoratives ("war crimes", etc) would equally apply. These terms are at best uninteresting and at worst distracting, which is what I'd originally intended to highlight with the quote referring to "genocidal language".
    - true_religion 3y ago
      It’s not a maybe. By current international law, the US government is guilty of war crimes. It is most definitely guilty of genocide against Japan with the wanton and unnecessary killing of Japanese civilians that can only be seen as a stark retaliation and collective punishment for the preventable events of Pearl Harbor. That’s how the law is written. There is no maybe about it. However, the fact that people are largely sympathetic to the US implies that maybe the law is a little too harsh, and does not provide any caveats for situational violence. International law today is a perfect ideal. It’s like a criminal code that bans murder, but doesn’t include any leeway for self defense or reduced sentences for manslaughter. Only perfect people can hold to its standards and no one is perfect.

catlover76 3y ago

That's a somewhat fair thing to point out, but it's also a bit thick to think that what people find so objectionable about Israel's retaliation is that it breaks international law or norms or any other such standard. It's about the basic morality of its imposition of collective punishment on the population of Gaza, while of course its population rages incandescently on the collective punishment Hamas sought to inflict on them, and stuff like that. Collective punishment is rarely a moral answer. Luckily, in this thread, we seem to have no people who are deranged enough to approve of Hamas's attack. But we do have people deranged enough to approve of Israel's response and who want everyone to think that when a Palestinian is killed, it's either a lie, or just tough, just collateral damage, but that when an Israeli is killed, it justifies the killing and further dispossession of hundreds and thousands of Palestinians in recompense.

nwiswell 3y ago
I entirely agree, and I feel moreover that it's the moral obligation of the United States to use our substantial foreign policy influence with Israel to compel a more humane treatment of Palestinians. Nevertheless when people point out that this is a "genocide" or that Israel is committing "war crimes" I wonder what point is actually being made. If it wasn't against international law, would that make it ok to collectively punish Palestine? I certainly don't think it would. At some level it just feels like weaponization of language, or at the very least like lazy thinking. One party is breaking laws, and breaking laws is bad, so that party is bad. But that logic would've applied to the USA in WWII, so as far as I'm concerned it's not at all elucidating.
- catlover76 3y ago
  People can make an argument that it is a genocide, and there is a reasonable defense that it is not. If, based on the facts, it doesn't seem to you like a genocide, then that's fine, but it's not like there is no rational basis for those assertions. With war crimes, I recall there being some specific evidence thereof, potentially from the UN. It was brought up during PMQs in Ireland, I think. > But that logic would've applied to the USA in WWII, so as far as I'm concerned it's not at all elucidating. I think most of us: a) Do not think this should prevent us from calling a spade a spade; b) In any event, can see quite a few differences between the two situations, such as the relative power disparity between the 2 sides in the middle east, the fact that Germany had taken over or was engaged in active hostilities with...most of Europe, etc. Maybe the US was wrong to bomb Dresden; maybe it was a war crime, and maybe it could have won the war without doing that, and without dropping atomic bombs. But that doesn't mean we have to hesitate before calling out similar crimes in the future just because we live in the US.
  - nwiswell 3y ago
    > In any event, can see quite a few differences between the two situations, such as the relative power disparity between the 2 sides in the middle east, the fact that Germany had taken over or was engaged in active hostilities with...most of Europe, etc. But this is exactly my point. The moral imperative was clear in WWII, but the same pejoratives ("war crimes", etc) would equally apply. These terms are at best uninteresting and at worst distracting, which is what I'd originally intended to highlight with the quote referring to "genocidal language".
  - true_religion 3y ago
    It’s not a maybe. By current international law, the US government is guilty of war crimes. It is most definitely guilty of genocide against Japan with the wanton and unnecessary killing of Japanese civilians that can only be seen as a stark retaliation and collective punishment for the preventable events of Pearl Harbor. That’s how the law is written. There is no maybe about it. However, the fact that people are largely sympathetic to the US implies that maybe the law is a little too harsh, and does not provide any caveats for situational violence. International law today is a perfect ideal. It’s like a criminal code that bans murder, but doesn’t include any leeway for self defense or reduced sentences for manslaughter. Only perfect people can hold to its standards and no one is perfect.