Horseshit, don’t equate this with collateral damage. The difference is nations generally minimize civilian death, not make it the sole purpose of the offense. It wouldn’t be a war crime otherwise.
A study covered by Ha’aretz: the civilian deaths account for 61% of deaths from air strikes in Gaza.
This makes the Gaza slaughter more fatal to civilians than any other conflict in the entire 20th Century. The century that included many genocides and both world wars.
In which major war nations tried to minimize collateral damage? Because in wars like Russia, Afganistan, Syria and many others, you cannot say there was someone who tried to minimize collateral damage. They simply wanted to win and usually at any cost.
And it’s considerably more than WW1. In WW1, the percentage was 41%. For WW2, estimates differ a bit, varying from 60-67%.
The current Gaza-conflict percentage stands at 61%, and it appears to be rising.
I do see I have to rectify myself a bit. I saw a headline stating it was higher than all 20th century conflicts, but the article contained a line stating it was higher than the average of all 20th century conflicts (which is about 50%). Small but significant detail, mea culpa.
Regardless of that, it’s higher than WW1 by a huge margin and it’s about as high as WW2 (which had death camps that civilians were sent to). If the IDF has reached that level of civilian casualties, any claims that they do their best to avoid targeting civilians have been effectively debunked.
Also, Hamas didn’t just come up in a vacuum. People here in Germany are radicalizing because they were asked to wear masks during a pandemic and they heard that brown people are now seeking refuge in Germany. Palestinians have been suppressed, starved and killed for decades and none of the more moderate forces have been able to do anything about it. Not that Hamas would do any better, but it’s understandable that people support more radical movements when they’re literally fighting for their survival.
I didn’t claim that they did the same. I asked whether it is justified to commit atrocious crimes just because one side crossed a moral line by commiting another (not necessarily similar) atrocious crime.
Israel effectively declared war on Palestine in 1967 (more accurately in 1917, but that aside). From that point onward any action with a military or political goal taken by Palestinians against their oppressors is justified.
Slaughtering civilians is never justified. What Hamas did was horrifying and a crime against humanity. But the reason why Hamas ever got so strong in the first place has a lot to do with how Isreal has systematically oppressed and killed Palestinians for decades. And the war it is waging now against the Palestinian people is also indefensible. It should be widely condemned, any support withdrawn and Israel should be sanctioned.
What Hamas did was horrifying and a crime against humanity.
The specifics of the attack, yeah. Any action that caused harm to civilians without a clear military goal absolutely must be prosecuted as a war crime/crime against humanity. But that doesn’t make the whole attack a terror attack, because it had a clear military goal and was staged against military and political targets, is what I’m trying to say.
We need to be aware of the difference between “Hamas committed crimes against humanity on October 7th” and “the October 7th attack was a crime against humanity”.
You keep meeting the atrocities committed by Hamas when they’re really not relevant in this precise instance.
Millennia-old houses of worship are treasures belonging to our species, not assets on a ledger belonging to any particular party in a conflict. So pointing out Hamas’ misdeeds is as relevant as pointing out the atrocities committed by the US against native Americans. It’s terrible, but it doesn’t provide context useful to the news that the IDF destroyed an ancient cultural treasure.
I see that you repeatedly condemn both sides, and I think that’s admirable. But it still seems misguided because it sounds like you’re trying to keep score when this isn’t a soccer match. Neither side gets a pass because the other did something bad too. This mosque wasn’t on anyone’s team.
I never said otherwise. That’s why I said military or political goal. We absolutely should be condemning the rape and any other deliberate murder of innocents.
I agree with you that Hamas is terrible and that Israel needs to destroy it, otherwise we will have 7th October every few years. Israel has the right to defend and to respond.
However, at the same time, bombing 1400 years old buildings crosses the line imo.
It’s incorrect to make the judgement that if Hamas are terrorists and they are Muslims that every Muslim is a terrorist as well. Hence why they should target Hamas buildings and not Muslim buildings or if they plan to get rid of mosques like this one, have a very good reason for it.
Should we then just excuse it and be like, “just let kill us because you don’t have marked buildings, so we don’t know what we can destroy. Okay, we will just leave you then.”
Is Hamas above using a mosque in the same way they leverage hospitals and schools and other innocent-heavy locales?
Edit: I get its a provocative question but one of the downvoters should have a little intellectual integrity and express why thats absurf given what has been documented. If they’ll use a hospital, why is a mosque suddenly more sacred?
If Hamas had not attacked and kidnapped citizens that would not have happened.
I guess then we should collectively punish their entire people.
I’m sure that’s never gone poorly before.
And to line it up just a little more on the nose for you:
A similar example to what your are arguing Israel is justified in doing.
Collective punishment is terrible but unfortunately is present in every war. It’s never a fight only between soldiers.
Oh, it’s “unfortunate” is it? Sounds like you want us to think it’s a thing that just happened and not a decision made at the top.
What,you’ve never heard the term justifiable genocide?
-This guy
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
What,you’ve never heard the term justifiable genocide?
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Horseshit, don’t equate this with collateral damage. The difference is nations generally minimize civilian death, not make it the sole purpose of the offense. It wouldn’t be a war crime otherwise.
A study covered by Ha’aretz: the civilian deaths account for 61% of deaths from air strikes in Gaza.
This makes the Gaza slaughter more fatal to civilians than any other conflict in the entire 20th Century. The century that included many genocides and both world wars.
In which major war nations tried to minimize collateral damage? Because in wars like Russia, Afganistan, Syria and many others, you cannot say there was someone who tried to minimize collateral damage. They simply wanted to win and usually at any cost.
The Israel-Gaza conflict has a larger percentage of civilian deaths than any other 20th century conflict, as was researched by Israeli universities.
Pretty much because it lasts longer than any other 20th century conflict.
Also, is it also more than WW1 and WW2?
For the percentage the duration does not matter.
And it’s considerably more than WW1. In WW1, the percentage was 41%. For WW2, estimates differ a bit, varying from 60-67%.
The current Gaza-conflict percentage stands at 61%, and it appears to be rising.
I do see I have to rectify myself a bit. I saw a headline stating it was higher than all 20th century conflicts, but the article contained a line stating it was higher than the average of all 20th century conflicts (which is about 50%). Small but significant detail, mea culpa.
Regardless of that, it’s higher than WW1 by a huge margin and it’s about as high as WW2 (which had death camps that civilians were sent to). If the IDF has reached that level of civilian casualties, any claims that they do their best to avoid targeting civilians have been effectively debunked.
Just following orders boss!
Yes, let’s blame a whole country and genocide them because of Hamas.
Also, Hamas didn’t just come up in a vacuum. People here in Germany are radicalizing because they were asked to wear masks during a pandemic and they heard that brown people are now seeking refuge in Germany. Palestinians have been suppressed, starved and killed for decades and none of the more moderate forces have been able to do anything about it. Not that Hamas would do any better, but it’s understandable that people support more radical movements when they’re literally fighting for their survival.
Israel has been doing this for decades before Hamas was even a thing. Read history.
And because one side crossed a moral line that justifies doing the same?
They didn’t do the same. Hamas did not target children.
I didn’t claim that they did the same. I asked whether it is justified to commit atrocious crimes just because one side crossed a moral line by commiting another (not necessarily similar) atrocious crime.
Other palestinian organizations have been also attacking Israel for decades. They both made terrible decisions.
Only since Palestinians were kicked out of their homes by Israel.
What are you referring to?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba
I think some austrian painter in the 30s used this kind of logic… must be just a coincidence…
Please elaborate how Adolf Hitler used kidnapped civilians as a justification for his actions.
Israel effectively declared war on Palestine in 1967 (more accurately in 1917, but that aside). From that point onward any action with a military or political goal taken by Palestinians against their oppressors is justified.
Slaughtering civilians is never justified. What Hamas did was horrifying and a crime against humanity. But the reason why Hamas ever got so strong in the first place has a lot to do with how Isreal has systematically oppressed and killed Palestinians for decades. And the war it is waging now against the Palestinian people is also indefensible. It should be widely condemned, any support withdrawn and Israel should be sanctioned.
The specifics of the attack, yeah. Any action that caused harm to civilians without a clear military goal absolutely must be prosecuted as a war crime/crime against humanity. But that doesn’t make the whole attack a terror attack, because it had a clear military goal and was staged against military and political targets, is what I’m trying to say.
We need to be aware of the difference between “Hamas committed crimes against humanity on October 7th” and “the October 7th attack was a crime against humanity”.
In my opinion raping women, mutilating them, even cutting off their breasts and playing with that (source) crosses a moral line.
I despise violence and condemn both sides for the crimes they are committing.
You keep meeting the atrocities committed by Hamas when they’re really not relevant in this precise instance.
Millennia-old houses of worship are treasures belonging to our species, not assets on a ledger belonging to any particular party in a conflict. So pointing out Hamas’ misdeeds is as relevant as pointing out the atrocities committed by the US against native Americans. It’s terrible, but it doesn’t provide context useful to the news that the IDF destroyed an ancient cultural treasure.
I see that you repeatedly condemn both sides, and I think that’s admirable. But it still seems misguided because it sounds like you’re trying to keep score when this isn’t a soccer match. Neither side gets a pass because the other did something bad too. This mosque wasn’t on anyone’s team.
I never said otherwise. That’s why I said military or political goal. We absolutely should be condemning the rape and any other deliberate murder of innocents.
Stop linking your fake news. IDF quotes without evidence aren’t a source
I have seen this covered on various news portals. I just chose one of them. Why do you think this is fake news?
How dare that mosque kidnap Israeli citizens!
I agree with you that Hamas is terrible and that Israel needs to destroy it, otherwise we will have 7th October every few years. Israel has the right to defend and to respond. However, at the same time, bombing 1400 years old buildings crosses the line imo. It’s incorrect to make the judgement that if Hamas are terrorists and they are Muslims that every Muslim is a terrorist as well. Hence why they should target Hamas buildings and not Muslim buildings or if they plan to get rid of mosques like this one, have a very good reason for it.
Hamas is a terrorist organization and not going to clearly mark their buildings in an organized or defined manner.
Should we then just excuse it and be like, “just let kill us because you don’t have marked buildings, so we don’t know what we can destroy. Okay, we will just leave you then.”
Is Hamas above using a mosque in the same way they leverage hospitals and schools and other innocent-heavy locales?
Edit: I get its a provocative question but one of the downvoters should have a little intellectual integrity and express why thats absurf given what has been documented. If they’ll use a hospital, why is a mosque suddenly more sacred?