4 ms·

Nations at war defend themselves by degrading the military might and desire to wage war of the enemy state. I find Israel's actions to be overly callous towards

Nations at war defend themselves by degrading the military might and desire to wage war of the enemy state. I find Israel's actions to be overly callous towards civilian death, but it's important to keep in mind that civilian death was inevitable once the government of Gaza decided to invade Israel and intentionally target civilians.

kamikazeturtles 3y ago
With that same logic you can justify the civilian deaths of almost any conflict. Every war crime will be justified. Japanese internment? Justified. Hiroshima? Justified. Agent Orange in Vietnam? Justified. Genocide of 2million Filipinos by the US Army? Justified.... It's exhausting just thinking about these atrocities so I'll take a break
- throwaway6734 3y ago
  It's not justification, but the reality. War is horrible and innocent people will always die in war.
  - kamikazeturtles 3y ago
    Genocide has no justification
    - ejb999 3y ago
      It depends on the context - just ask the presidents of Harvard, MIT and UPenn
    - nico 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - h3rsko 3y ago
        [flagged]
        nico 3y ago
        [flagged]
        underdeserver 3y ago
        [flagged]
- edanm 3y ago
  No, because there's a huge difference between deliberately targeting civilians vs collateral damage. Genocide, which is the intent and actions to destroy an entire people, is never justified, because it presupposes you'll target and kill many civilians to achieve it.
  - kamikazeturtles 3y ago
    True, the distinction between targeting civilians and collateral damage is significant and morally relevant. However, it's important to recognize that even actions labeled as 'collateral damage' can sometimes reflect a disregard for civilian life. While genocide, the intentional destruction of a people, is unequivocally condemnable, we must also scrutinize military operations that, though not aimed at civilians, consistently result in substantial civilian casualties. Such outcomes might indicate a failure to adequately value and protect innocent lives. Just as deliberate attacks on civilians are never justifiable, so too are military strategies that do not prioritize minimizing harm to civilians. Both scenarios reflect a moral failing in respecting the sanctity of human life.
    - esyir 3y ago
      >so too are military strategies that do not prioritize minimizing harm to civilians. Both scenarios reflect a moral failing in respecting the sanctity of human life. Strong disagree there. There's always a tradeoff, and where that boundary lies is never going to be fixed. There will always be "acceptable losses" in warfare, to do otherwise is to essentially surrender. Moreover, Israel has taken actions to reduce civilian losses in the form of evacuations, roof knocks and the like. Conversely Hamas is well known to use civilian areas for military purposes. And this doesn't even consider hostage treatment. If we talk about minimizing harm, then Hamas is doing the opposite, and thus is a greater moral failure
      - kamikazeturtles 3y ago
        Your perspective on the complex situation in the Israel-Palestine conflict raises important points, but it's crucial to consider the broader context and implications of these actions. Firstly, the concept of "acceptable losses" in warfare, while a grim reality, should not be accepted without rigorous scrutiny, especially in conflicts involving highly asymmetric powers. The Palestinian civilian population often bears a disproportionate burden of these losses, raising serious humanitarian and ethical concerns. Regarding Israel's efforts to minimize civilian casualties, such as evacuations and roof knocks, these measures, while notable, do not always prevent significant civilian harm. The dense population and small geographical size of Gaza, for instance, make it nearly impossible for civilians to find safe refuge during conflicts. Moreover, international law obligates all parties in a conflict to avoid civilian areas for military operations, and this applies to both Israel and Hamas. The use of civilian areas by Hamas for military purposes is indeed condemnable; however, it doesn't justify the scale of response that results in extensive civilian casualties and infrastructure damage. The humanitarian impact on the Palestinian population extends beyond immediate casualties. The long-term effects of the blockade on Gaza, restrictions on movement, and economic hardships cannot be overlooked. These factors contribute to a broader context of suffering and human rights issues. In discussing moral failings, it's essential to recognize the complexities and nuances of this conflict. The focus should be on seeking solutions that prioritize the protection of all civilians, uphold human rights, and work towards a just and sustainable peace for both Israelis and Palestinians. The sanctity of human life must be the cornerstone of any military strategy, and efforts towards peace must include addressing the root causes of the conflict, ensuring accountability, and respecting international laws and human rights for all parties involved.
adhamsalama 3y ago
[flagged]
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  Israeli military has actively supported those settlers https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/07/west-bank-settler-violence-a-photo-essay https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/07/west-bank-sett...
malcolmgreaves 3y ago
> government of Gaza Hamas is not the government.

kamikazeturtles 3y ago

With that same logic you can justify the civilian deaths of almost any conflict. Every war crime will be justified. Japanese internment? Justified. Hiroshima? Justified. Agent Orange in Vietnam? Justified. Genocide of 2million Filipinos by the US Army? Justified.... It's exhausting just thinking about these atrocities so I'll take a break

throwaway6734 3y ago
It's not justification, but the reality. War is horrible and innocent people will always die in war.
- kamikazeturtles 3y ago
  Genocide has no justification
  - ejb999 3y ago
    It depends on the context - just ask the presidents of Harvard, MIT and UPenn
  - nico 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - h3rsko 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - nico 3y ago
        [flagged]
        underdeserver 3y ago
        [flagged]
edanm 3y ago
No, because there's a huge difference between deliberately targeting civilians vs collateral damage. Genocide, which is the intent and actions to destroy an entire people, is never justified, because it presupposes you'll target and kill many civilians to achieve it.
- kamikazeturtles 3y ago
  True, the distinction between targeting civilians and collateral damage is significant and morally relevant. However, it's important to recognize that even actions labeled as 'collateral damage' can sometimes reflect a disregard for civilian life. While genocide, the intentional destruction of a people, is unequivocally condemnable, we must also scrutinize military operations that, though not aimed at civilians, consistently result in substantial civilian casualties. Such outcomes might indicate a failure to adequately value and protect innocent lives. Just as deliberate attacks on civilians are never justifiable, so too are military strategies that do not prioritize minimizing harm to civilians. Both scenarios reflect a moral failing in respecting the sanctity of human life.
  - esyir 3y ago
    >so too are military strategies that do not prioritize minimizing harm to civilians. Both scenarios reflect a moral failing in respecting the sanctity of human life. Strong disagree there. There's always a tradeoff, and where that boundary lies is never going to be fixed. There will always be "acceptable losses" in warfare, to do otherwise is to essentially surrender. Moreover, Israel has taken actions to reduce civilian losses in the form of evacuations, roof knocks and the like. Conversely Hamas is well known to use civilian areas for military purposes. And this doesn't even consider hostage treatment. If we talk about minimizing harm, then Hamas is doing the opposite, and thus is a greater moral failure
    - kamikazeturtles 3y ago
      Your perspective on the complex situation in the Israel-Palestine conflict raises important points, but it's crucial to consider the broader context and implications of these actions. Firstly, the concept of "acceptable losses" in warfare, while a grim reality, should not be accepted without rigorous scrutiny, especially in conflicts involving highly asymmetric powers. The Palestinian civilian population often bears a disproportionate burden of these losses, raising serious humanitarian and ethical concerns. Regarding Israel's efforts to minimize civilian casualties, such as evacuations and roof knocks, these measures, while notable, do not always prevent significant civilian harm. The dense population and small geographical size of Gaza, for instance, make it nearly impossible for civilians to find safe refuge during conflicts. Moreover, international law obligates all parties in a conflict to avoid civilian areas for military operations, and this applies to both Israel and Hamas. The use of civilian areas by Hamas for military purposes is indeed condemnable; however, it doesn't justify the scale of response that results in extensive civilian casualties and infrastructure damage. The humanitarian impact on the Palestinian population extends beyond immediate casualties. The long-term effects of the blockade on Gaza, restrictions on movement, and economic hardships cannot be overlooked. These factors contribute to a broader context of suffering and human rights issues. In discussing moral failings, it's essential to recognize the complexities and nuances of this conflict. The focus should be on seeking solutions that prioritize the protection of all civilians, uphold human rights, and work towards a just and sustainable peace for both Israelis and Palestinians. The sanctity of human life must be the cornerstone of any military strategy, and efforts towards peace must include addressing the root causes of the conflict, ensuring accountability, and respecting international laws and human rights for all parties involved.

adhamsalama 3y ago

[flagged]

wahnfrieden 3y ago
Israeli military has actively supported those settlers https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/07/west-bank-settler-violence-a-photo-essay https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/07/west-bank-sett...

malcolmgreaves 3y ago

> government of Gaza Hamas is not the government.