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.
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.
Again, by definition genocide has no military purpose.
Israel’s military objective is to destroy Hamas. According to Western military doctrine (which Israel is capable of using), this objective does not require wiping out every last Palestinian. So it doesn’t matter what Israel “determines”, wiping out every last Palestinian is not permissible.
I think if war is justified, then killing children is justified because children are always killed in war. Personally I’m ambivalent about whether war can ever be justified, but I certainly recognize that most people think it can.
But I don’t agree with those who believe that (say) the US invasion of Normandy can be justified, but this invasion cannot be justified. Both involved immense civilian suffering.
Hamas did not invade Israel. What are you talking about? They didn’t try to take over territory. They committed an act of terrorism, not an act of war.
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.
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
Dude, sync for Lemmy has dark mode. I’m sure the other apps have that too. Maybe it will improve your dyslexia. Which of these screen grabs connect to the thread above? And these are screens of multiple users. The thread above is from Flow.
Edit: also, even if it was true in the past they defended the IDF. Who cares? Engage with the points being made. Is that too hard?
At no point -nowhere- did they defend the IDF and claim the occupation is inherently justified.
Insulting my reading abilities, apart from violating community rules (I do not moderate my own discussions, but this will make me take a look at others you are having) is a bit silly when you don’t seem to remember what you wrote one post before.
Yes, in a separate thread, which you had to dig up. My point stands: you’re not engaging with the argument. You’re here for cheap shots. IDF bad, amirite?
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.
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.
Again, by definition genocide has no military purpose.
Israel’s military objective is to destroy Hamas. According to Western military doctrine (which Israel is capable of using), this objective does not require wiping out every last Palestinian. So it doesn’t matter what Israel “determines”, wiping out every last Palestinian is not permissible.
I think if war is justified, then killing children is justified because children are always killed in war. Personally I’m ambivalent about whether war can ever be justified, but I certainly recognize that most people think it can.
It isn’t.
If you’re a pacifist, I can respect that.
But I don’t agree with those who believe that (say) the US invasion of Normandy can be justified, but this invasion cannot be justified. Both involved immense civilian suffering.
The invasion of Normandy was not what started the war. The war started when the Nazis invaded Poland.
And the storming of Normandy beach did not involve the deaths of civilians.
This war started when Hamas invaded Israel.
And the invasion of Normandy did not end on the beach.
Hamas did not invade Israel. What are you talking about? They didn’t try to take over territory. They committed an act of terrorism, not an act of war.
Distinction without difference, it’s a casus belli either way.
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.
Seems to me like all this dude was saying is that what Israel is doing is justified. What with him trying to justify it.
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
Except the times they have, in fact, defended and justified the IDF’s actions:
Dude, sync for Lemmy has dark mode. I’m sure the other apps have that too. Maybe it will improve your dyslexia. Which of these screen grabs connect to the thread above? And these are screens of multiple users. The thread above is from Flow.
Edit: also, even if it was true in the past they defended the IDF. Who cares? Engage with the points being made. Is that too hard?
You, one post ago:
Insulting my reading abilities, apart from violating community rules (I do not moderate my own discussions, but this will make me take a look at others you are having) is a bit silly when you don’t seem to remember what you wrote one post before.
Yes, in a separate thread, which you had to dig up. My point stands: you’re not engaging with the argument. You’re here for cheap shots. IDF bad, amirite?