• FlowVoid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    In war, you are allowed to kill innocents if necessary to achieve a valid military objective.

    In this war, the IDF’s objective is to destroy Hamas.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      “Allowed” by whom? “Necessary” by whose metric?

      If their objective is to destroy Hamas and they determine that the only way to do that is wipe out the Palestinian people from the face of the Earth, you’re saying that’s justified because it’s their necessary military objective?

      • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Allowed by international law.

        Necessary according to their military capabilities, which can be judged by observers.

        Most observers don’t think destroying Hamas requires wiping out all Palestinians, but at the same time it’s impossible to destroy Hamas without civilian casualties.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Okay, well observers are saying Israel is committing genocide, so I’m not sure what your issue is.

          Also, I’m not sure why you think what is legal is the same as what is moral.

          • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Legal isn’t the same as moral, but there is no consensus on the morality of war. Some people are pacifists and believe all war is immoral. Most people believe war is justified if it has a legitimate casus belli.

            Whether or not Israel is committing genocide is a separate question from whether a military action is morally permissible, because genocide involves actions with no military purpose. In other words it’s possible that strikes like these are morally permissible even if a government is also doing things that are illegal, like blocking aid delivery.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              Once again- if Israel determines that wiping out every last Palestinian has a military purpose, that, according to you, is not genocide and is also justified.

              You have a very strange idea about what is or is not justified in this world. You seem to think Dresden was justified and that killing thousands of children in Gaza is justified because things happen in war.

              Please do contact the parents of dead Gazan children and let them know those deaths were justified. Let me know how it goes.

              • TheFonz@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                Jeesus. You are unable to hold more than one parallel thought in your head at once. A thing can be genocidal or casualty of war or both. Thats all this dude was saying but you can’t even engage with a simple thought like this because you have to rush quickly to grandstand.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Seems to me like all this dude was saying is that what Israel is doing is justified. What with him trying to justify it.

                  • TheFonz@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    That’s the problem. You are more eager to ascribe positions to interlocutors rather than engage with the points. It’s really odd and unnecessarily combative. This dude was just providing context and a different perspective. At no point -nowhere- did they defend the IDF and claim the occupation is inherently justified. Read people’s posts more carefully? I don’t know. Lemmy has no interest other than hearing themselves