3 ms·

>Because maybe in your mind you think they're savages/less civilized. No, rather because they want to use the international law to their advantage, not to thei

>Because maybe in your mind you think they're savages/less civilized. No, rather because they want to use the international law to their advantage, not to their detriment.

Grimblewald 2y ago
I would say that when you are being treated poorly in a way where laws exist protecting your right to demand better and realistically should be able to expect better, then using those laws is using them as intended. Sure it is to your advantage, however, the way you say it implies it is an unfair advantage, rather than simply trying to remove an unfairly applied disadvantage/detriment. Are you suggesting they should not try to use laws to protect themselves from genocide/displacement?
- jojobas 2y ago
  This is not about genocide/displacement, this is about two attacks that have been assessed as targeting civilians or some such. Yes, I'd say a side that starts a conflict with an egregious assault on civilians should be limited in its right to use international law to stop a similarly or less illegal counterattack. In other words, if you attack someone with a knife you shouldn't be able to press charges for punches flying back. Or, at the very lease, not until the organizers and perpetrators of the initial atrocity are surrendered to that same court they are appealing to.
  - Grimblewald 2y ago
    You really think this protest exists in a vacuum, totally detached and isolated from the context of the broader Israeli led genocide against Palestinians? Ok.
    - jojobas 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - netsharc 2y ago
        > Even in this campaign they've been objectively trying to reduce civilian casualties despite it's detrimental effect on their military objective. Puh-lease..! The ones wanting the genocide (yeah I say this deliberately) to end don't see it that way. At best you're delusional if you think they Israeli army benevolently cares, at worst you know this is a lie and you cynically don't care. Like you cynically just sum up overall casualty numbers as "just 1 year's worth of population growth". The official number is 40000. AFAIK that's the number of directly killed by American/European bombs dropped by the IDF, bullets or by a building collapsing on them because a bomb dropped nearby. The unofficial number (killed by lack of food, housing, sanitation) is a lot higher, e.g. 186000 up to July (1). That's 186000 seeds of future terrorists avowing revenge (hey if you, as someone of the pro-genocide camp, are "lucky", maybe entire communities get wiped out that no one is left to fester anger about their community members' unjust death. And somewhere in there is probably the genocide-doers' unsaid justification about killing babies (14 pages of the list of names and ages of victims of this war have the number "0" for their age, but hey "just 1 year's worth of population growth!") - the freshly born Palestinians "deserve" to be killed, because otherwise they are going to grow up hating the nation that killed 186000 members of their community anyway and bombed their country into the middle ages, why not kill them now?). 1) https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20240711-more-than-186-000-dead-in-gaza-how-credible-are-the-estimates-published-on-the-lancet https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20240711-more-than-1...
        jojobas 2y ago
        [flagged]
        aguaviva 2y ago
        One can quibble about the technical definition of genocide, or the degree of intent on the part of the perpetrators. But I don't see how one can say that 40,000+ largely civilian deaths (including around 15k women, minors and elderly) -- likely to eventually grow to easily 3x that amount (even if the war were to stop today) due to the long-term health impacts of the overall situation, according to people who study these things -- isn't "making a dent" in the population. Unless one implicitly considers that population to be, well, kind of not really human to begin with. Just imagine someone saying: "The Oct 7th attack was kind of messy I guess, but really, you can't say it was genocidal -- after all, it didn't even make a dent in Jewish population."

>Because maybe in your mind you think they're savages/less civilized. No, rather because they want to use the international law to their advantage, not to their detriment.

Grimblewald 2y ago

I would say that when you are being treated poorly in a way where laws exist protecting your right to demand better and realistically should be able to expect better, then using those laws is using them as intended. Sure it is to your advantage, however, the way you say it implies it is an unfair advantage, rather than simply trying to remove an unfairly applied disadvantage/detriment. Are you suggesting they should not try to use laws to protect themselves from genocide/displacement?

jojobas 2y ago
This is not about genocide/displacement, this is about two attacks that have been assessed as targeting civilians or some such. Yes, I'd say a side that starts a conflict with an egregious assault on civilians should be limited in its right to use international law to stop a similarly or less illegal counterattack. In other words, if you attack someone with a knife you shouldn't be able to press charges for punches flying back. Or, at the very lease, not until the organizers and perpetrators of the initial atrocity are surrendered to that same court they are appealing to.
- Grimblewald 2y ago
  You really think this protest exists in a vacuum, totally detached and isolated from the context of the broader Israeli led genocide against Palestinians? Ok.
  - jojobas 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - netsharc 2y ago
      > Even in this campaign they've been objectively trying to reduce civilian casualties despite it's detrimental effect on their military objective. Puh-lease..! The ones wanting the genocide (yeah I say this deliberately) to end don't see it that way. At best you're delusional if you think they Israeli army benevolently cares, at worst you know this is a lie and you cynically don't care. Like you cynically just sum up overall casualty numbers as "just 1 year's worth of population growth". The official number is 40000. AFAIK that's the number of directly killed by American/European bombs dropped by the IDF, bullets or by a building collapsing on them because a bomb dropped nearby. The unofficial number (killed by lack of food, housing, sanitation) is a lot higher, e.g. 186000 up to July (1). That's 186000 seeds of future terrorists avowing revenge (hey if you, as someone of the pro-genocide camp, are "lucky", maybe entire communities get wiped out that no one is left to fester anger about their community members' unjust death. And somewhere in there is probably the genocide-doers' unsaid justification about killing babies (14 pages of the list of names and ages of victims of this war have the number "0" for their age, but hey "just 1 year's worth of population growth!") - the freshly born Palestinians "deserve" to be killed, because otherwise they are going to grow up hating the nation that killed 186000 members of their community anyway and bombed their country into the middle ages, why not kill them now?). 1) https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20240711-more-than-186-000-dead-in-gaza-how-credible-are-the-estimates-published-on-the-lancet https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20240711-more-than-1...
      - jojobas 2y ago
        [flagged]
        aguaviva 2y ago
        One can quibble about the technical definition of genocide, or the degree of intent on the part of the perpetrators. But I don't see how one can say that 40,000+ largely civilian deaths (including around 15k women, minors and elderly) -- likely to eventually grow to easily 3x that amount (even if the war were to stop today) due to the long-term health impacts of the overall situation, according to people who study these things -- isn't "making a dent" in the population. Unless one implicitly considers that population to be, well, kind of not really human to begin with. Just imagine someone saying: "The Oct 7th attack was kind of messy I guess, but really, you can't say it was genocidal -- after all, it didn't even make a dent in Jewish population."