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?
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.
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.
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
“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?
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.
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.
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.
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: