3 ms·
"atrocities" is a loaded term. There is a war going on, war is brutal and in war civilians suffer and die, which is horrible and regrettable. But you can't lo
by vasilipupkin 3y ago
"atrocities" is a loaded term. There is a war going on, war is brutal and in war civilians suffer and die, which is horrible and regrettable. But you can't look at this situation and treat it as if out of thin air, for no reason at all, Israel decided to just commit atrocities.
No, what is happening is the following: Hamas is a 30,000 strong organization that has support of Iran which has as its main purpose and reason for existence, destruction of Israel and murder of Israelis.
It has been firing thousands of rockets into Israel for 17 years and on October 7th they attacked, broke through border defenses and killed 1200 Israelis. And subsequently explicitly vowed to repeat this again and again. In this situation Israel simply has no choice but to fight this group to the death.
That is the backdrop in which civilian deaths are happening. You cant just deny this backdrop or analyze the situation as if it doesn't exist.
It's an actual war, a war between two parties. It's bizarre to say that in a war which involves two actors and which Israel did not start, that it bears 100% of responsiblity for civilian casualties. You can't ignore the fact that Hamas embeds itself in civilian population or that Hamas and Islamic Jihad fire rockets at Israel, a decent percentage of which misfire and subsequently fall on Palestinian civilians and injure or kill them.
War is absolutely a horrible thing but you have to at least be willing to assign some of the responsibility for this war to Hamas, which actually started it on October 7th
- runarberg 3y agoThe only point I’ve made which you address here is that you object to me using the word atrocities and then go on justifying the conduct which I called atrocities. The rest is irrelevant to any point I’ve made so I’m gonna ignore it (at least here). Genocide is by agreement not justifiable. Article III of the Genocide convention makes it clear that genocide (a), incitement to commit genocide (c), attempt to commit genocide (d) and complicity in genocide (e) are all punishable crimes. The convention offers no exemption for these crimes, and therefor no justification. So if intent is found, any crimes committed against Israel prior to these atrocities (sorry, I don’t know a better word, so I’ll keep using it), then it is demonstrably false that the October 7th attacks were a justification for them. Because legally, they aren’t. If the court fails to find intent, then honestly you’ll just have to look at your humanity and see whether the same atrocities committed because of carelessness instead of intent, are then justifiable. Personally I think human lives are worth more.
- vasilipupkin 3y agoyou've actually made several points, perhaps without realizing it One point you made is that Israeli actions are apriori atrocities, not acts of legitimate warfare The second point you made, perhaps without fully understanding it, is that human lives by your definition does not include Israeli lives. Israel engaged in war with Hamas for a very specific reason, which is that Hamas is intending to continue murdering Israelis in unlimited numbers for all eternity. This context is relevant. You can't sidestep it if you want to seriously engage with what is actually happening.
- runarberg 3y agoSorry, I wasn’t clear (english is not my first language). What I meant to say was: The only point I’ve made which you’ve addressed. I made more points in my parent post (which you didn’t address) and you made more points in your reply (which I subsequently didn’t address). The intersection of these points was only one point (that I found), and is what I replied to. But it was unnecessary for you to assume believes from me about which live matter. Please don’t do that.