• shatal@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s unclear.

    Hamas clearly and obviously committed crimes against humanity (intentionally murdering civilians, raping, torturing and kidnapping).

    Israel, so far, is playing in the gray areas. It’s legal, according to international law, to lay siege on a population as long as it has a definitive and declared military purpose. It’s illegal to do it to intentionally harm civilians or to intentionally starve them.

    The main problem is that Hamas is using the Palestinians and hides amongst them. That makes the legal discussion very difficult because Israel can always say that they target Hamas and everything else is just collateral damage.

    Unfortunately the Palestinians are getting f’ed from both sides here.

    • FMT99@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m pretty sure cutting of food and water to an entire population is no gray area, it’s pretty unambiguously a warcrime.

      • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        it’s pretty unambiguously a warcrime

        Also noteworthy: US law requires countries receiving US military aid to not have a consistent pattern of violating human rights, etc. And yet, the US doesn’t even follow US law on that

      • protovack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        so israel is obligated to keep providing vital supplies to the terrorists murdering them? Maybe instead of buying rockets they should have worked on their infrastructure.

        • x86x87@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Cutting off is different from providing.

          Also, let’s call what Israel is doing in Gaza what it is: genocide.

        • Nowyn@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          If Israel wants to keep occupying an area, yes they do have the responsibility to keep supplying vital supplies to Gaza. Even if some of them would be terrorists. And while some of them could be called terrorists, you do not have permission to deliberately cause harm to everyone in largish area.

          You being attacked does not allow you to commit war crimes, genocide or ethnic cleansing. This is not a grey area.

          • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            You being attacked does not allow you to commit war crimes, genocide or ethnic cleansing. This is not a grey area.

            If someone was about to kill you, and they’re hiding behind another person, and the only way you could stop them from killing you would be putting the third person at risk of being killed as well, do you have the right to defend yourself?

            That’s basically the point, on a macro level, that we are all arguing about.

            • iquanyin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              if someone was about to kill you, you would know who they were. you wouldn’t be killing random bystanders.

              • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                No, the third party can be a stranger who just gets caught up in the middle of it, who becomes the shield against their will.

            • Sparking@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Are you seriously trying to argue that hamas is hiding behind 2 million civilians in Gaza, and that there were now thousands of valid military targets? Natalie Bennet couldn’t even answer a simple question a BBC interviewer posed to him about their consideration of the lives of innocent babies. Couldn’t even answer a simple question. This man is supposed to be one of the leaders of the nation.

              • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Are you seriously trying to argue that hamas is hiding behind 2 million civilians in Gaza,

                Its been widly reported that the Palestinians are being used by Hamas as human shields.

                and that there were now thousands of valid military targets?

                No. I was just stating the problem, not offering a solution. Its a very real dilemma.

                What do you do, when your enemy is behind an innocent person who is being used as a shield.

                • Sparking@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  But this is that justification in that context. “Oh, they are using the civillian population as human shields. Looks like we are going to have to kill everyone.” Like 2 million stand between the IDF and the hostages. So silly. I would hope the IDF leadership is a little more disciplined than that logic.

                  • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    But this is that justification in that context.

                    I’m asking it as a moral dilemma, a thought experiment, generally speaking, and not to this current situation.

                    Fundamentally, is it ethically/morally right to risk/kill an innocent person who is being used as a shield, when trying to kill someone who is trying to kill you?

                    “Oh, they are using the civillian population as human shields. Looks like we are going to have to kill everyone.”

                    They’re not saying that, at least I haven’t heard them say that, and I’ve been watching the coverage daily.

                    They’re definately risking everyone in the area, but they’ve also warned everyone in the area to get out of the area, before they go in.

                • ???@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Its been widly reported that the Palestinians are being used by Hamas as human shields.

                  Could you support that claim? Because it is Israel that actually has a track record of using human shields.

                  Example: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/un-report-accuses-israeli-forces-of-using-palestinian-children-as-human-shields-abusing-children-in-custody/

                  There are like a gazillion more reports like this so just say the words and I will personally DuckDuckGo them for you.

                  And no sorry, living in an area does not mean you are using people as human shields. Israel, for example, forces children to walk through a cross fire as a human shield or straps them on the front of an army truck.

                  • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Could you support that claim? Because it is Israel that actually has a track record of using human shields.

                    Well, I didn’t write down the dates and times down so I can prove them to you when you asked me, but I’ve been watching coverage every day all day on this and it was mentioned many times on multiple networks like CNN, BBC, NPR, Breaking Points (Intetnet), etc.

                    There are like a gazillion more reports like this so just say the words and I will personally DuckDuckGo them for you.

                    As with everything else about the Israeli-Palestinian issue, it always comes down to both sides having ample evidence of how the other side is bad and they are good.

                    Having said that, if you just look at what’s going on in Gaza right now, you can see Hamas has bases/underground tunnels and the Palestinians are what are between Israel and Hamas.

            • Nowyn@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              There is another question on a micro level. How many people who are not about to kill you can you kill in self-defence to save how many people?

              While in theory, every human life is as important and valued as another we do often in practice allow some movement morally.

              The third question is immediacy. Are you allowed to kill someone in self-defence if you know they will kill you tomorrow? Is it just current action, and how far current stretches.

              But while those are simplified questions on the philosophy of ethics in these situations they don’t entirely apply to Israel and Palestine. That is because they ignore the power imbalance.

              • rdri@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago
                1. Something already got wrong in your logic chain if you came up with something like “well maybe if I need to kill 1001 citizens the terrorist is hiding behind in order to save my 1000 citizens, maybe better not do anything and let him kill my citizens”.

                2. Immediacy is simple in this case. We all know that if Palestinians do not attack Israel then Israel will not attack Palestinians. And we all know that no matter what, Palestinians are going to continue their unprovoked attacks. This means whoever comes up with “let’s attack first because otherwise we’ll get attacked” must be Palestinian, and a lying one.

                • Nowyn@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Why are your citizens somehow more valuable than any other citizens? I am not even saying do nothing. I am saying killing people indiscriminately is not OK.

                  Second, if these are unprovoked attacks I have no idea what in your world constitutes provoked. I don’t think attacks being provoked makes them right but they didn’t come out of nothing. Israel is not an innocent party here. Neither is Palestine.

                  • rdri@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    It’s not about being valuable or not. It’s about accepting terrorism as weather and do nothing about providing an umbrella. While your stance suggests Israel to silently let Israeli die, hamas is actively using Palestinians in order to get away with their terrorism. This means hamas actively wants anyone interfering to kill Palestinians instead of hamas. They’re making it unavoidable.

                    Unprovoked attacks are unprovoked. When you want to say “Palestinians were forced to storm the Israel territory in an attempt to kill as many citizens as possible because something happened in the past”, you suggest a provoked attack. And if you say “but look, it didn’t come out of nothing, there is a reason that is righteous”, I’d ask you to consider how exactly it was even theoretically logical and effective. If you want to punish your attacker, you punish your attacker, not civilians. If you want to go war, you better have a plan on how to win from the very start. And if you know you can’t win, you don’t start because you value the lives of your people.

        • ???@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Gaza has worked on its infrastructure and now Israel destroyed it all again. Hmmm…

    • Sparking@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Its not a gray area. Killing civilians is wrong. It does nothing to counter hamas. It is not productive towards rescuing the hostages. Its not a well thought out or considered strategy that follow even the logic of war. It is just a cruel and broken reaction to terrorism. One atrocity in return the other. The point if government and leadership is to not behave like this. Jews whose famiues bear the the scars of the holocaust, myself included, know this better than anyone.

    • ???@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The main problem is that Hamas is using the Palestinians and hides amongst them

      Why do you think Hamas has not been able to “resolve” this issue?