Conversation

Notices

1. Robert von Oliva (naruciakk@ak.kawen.space)'s status on Friday, 03-Nov-2023 06:48:13 JST Robert von Oliva

   • Xerz! :blobcathearttrans:
   @xerz >Right, so nuking civilian infrastructure (including refugee camps)
   
   Jabalia is a 50k town that has a status of a refugee camp only because it was established as such in AFAIR 1950s. And is it a stronghold of Hamas, and given Hamas' methods of the usage of civilian buildings, it is not illogical to at least take into consideration that it is likely the infrastructure and some buildings there could be used by Hamas. Do we know for sure that all of the buildings that were intentionally struct were such? No, of course not, but to claim that something was actually a war crime, we need to know for sure.
   
   >a few of the folks are (para)military
   Unfortunately, it's not a few of the folks, it's the current real government of Gaza, authoritarian, sure (because although the election in 2006 were democratic, the later changes of the status of power in the region were less so), but still. And regardless of that – the usage of civilian infrastructure in Gaza by Hamas must lead to a lot of civilian casualties if Hamas should ever be destroyed. Which could be also a strategy of Hamas to gain sympathy (I use subjunctive here, because although it's suggested quite widely, I haven't seen a definitive proof that this is a plan of Hamas and not just a coincidence).
   
   Is it wrong? Sure, but does it really lead to the conclusion that the guilt lies in the hands of Israel here?
   
   >and not war crimes
   Well, actions can be right or wrong, or at least controversial, but for something to be specifically a war crime it has to stick to the definitions. Destroying civilian buildings that are in the military use (+ the collateral, because if you bomb a military building in an urban environment, it's hard not to destroy something else as a result) is not a war crime. The deliberate destruction of purely civilian buildings is.
   
   >I’ll just let time pass and evidence speak up for itself.
   And that's a really reasonable approach in the age of Twitter's (etc., you get the idea) manipulated and biased quasi news.
   • LS (lain@lain.com)'s status on Friday, 03-Nov-2023 06:48:12 JST LS

     in reply to

     • Xerz! :blobcathearttrans:
     @naruciakk @xerz
     > not a war crime
     
     That might be true but those are all still plain old regular crimes, from Hamas and netanyahu's posse.
   • Robert von Oliva (naruciakk@ak.kawen.space)'s status on Friday, 03-Nov-2023 07:38:23 JST Robert von Oliva

     in reply to

     • Xerz! :blobcathearttrans:
     • LS
     @lain @xerz I don't need to use crime (law definition) to say that something is wrong :P
     
     (I might held a personal grudge to Hamas though for destroying my holiday in Israel)
     LS likes this.
   • LS (lain@lain.com)'s status on Friday, 03-Nov-2023 07:39:35 JST LS

     in reply to

     • Xerz! :blobcathearttrans:
     @naruciakk @xerz i mean plain old natural law, i would think you support that.
   • LS (lain@lain.com)'s status on Friday, 03-Nov-2023 08:09:50 JST LS

     in reply to

     • Xerz! :blobcathearttrans:
     @naruciakk @xerz this
   • Robert von Oliva (naruciakk@ak.kawen.space)'s status on Friday, 03-Nov-2023 08:09:51 JST Robert von Oliva

     in reply to

     • Xerz! :blobcathearttrans:
     • LS
     @lain @xerz In natural law I consider a war overall as a wrong thing/crime