That’s great and all. I’m sure that works at the individual level. When your country enters an active war none of that matters, does it? So why bring it up?
Of course it matters! If your enemy kills 3 innocent people on your side and you retaliate by killing a million people on their side, it matters a whole fucking lot.
Hamas is bad. Very few people will dispute that. Israel has proven that, at this point in time, it is far worse because it kills far more innocent people.
Discourse on Lemmy is so stupid. It’s so stupid. Like Facebook boomer stupid.
Is the IDF counter-attack proportional or is it excessive compared to what Hamas is doing? I would say it’s absolutely excessive. How is that excess justified? I would urge you guys to put more thought into any of this discourse beyond “genocide; colonialism; apartheid; imperialism”. Please, for the love of god. Try. When you use cheap logic, all you do is give more fodder to IDF --and I’m not a fan of IDF.
If I take your claim and analyze it logically it’s not sound at all. The typical numbers game to counter whether the occupation is justified: More civilians dead = IDF bad. Pause. Think about this statement for a second. Do we measure justification for war based on the number of casualties incurred? When the allies bombed Dresden, did we find reason to defeat the Nazis even though many civilian casualties occurred? Yes, a calculated risk was made.
The question is: What ought the IDF do in this scenario with Hamas perpetually shelling them with rockets by planting themselves in civilian areas?
Sorry… you’re comparing what Israel is doing right now to what allies did to a city in the country that was itself perpetrating the genocide? A country that was also itself invading Allied nations?
I don’t even know what you think my logic is beyond “the more innocent people you kill, the less morally justified your position becomes.”
Can you give an example of when that is not the case? Because I don’t know too many people who think that the bombing of Dresden was morally justified.
So tell me, should the US have stopped attacking Japan once they’d matched the ~2.4k soldiers killed at Pearl Harbor?
Or should the allies have stopped “genociding” Nazi Germany once they’d matched Hitler’s body count?
OF COURSE NOT. This isn’t about tit for tat. Especially when going after an enemy that is openly committee to your annihilation. Israel certainly appears to be doing a shit job of it, but there is no need to muddy the waters with specious arguments.
In my country we have a law that self defense has to be proportional and you are only allowed to use enough force to stop the attack.
It can’t be like “the guy down the street threw a rock through my window so I go and kill his whole family in their beds”.
That’s great and all. I’m sure that works at the individual level. When your country enters an active war none of that matters, does it? So why bring it up?
Of course it matters! If your enemy kills 3 innocent people on your side and you retaliate by killing a million people on their side, it matters a whole fucking lot.
Hamas is bad. Very few people will dispute that. Israel has proven that, at this point in time, it is far worse because it kills far more innocent people.
Discourse on Lemmy is so stupid. It’s so stupid. Like Facebook boomer stupid.
Is the IDF counter-attack proportional or is it excessive compared to what Hamas is doing? I would say it’s absolutely excessive. How is that excess justified? I would urge you guys to put more thought into any of this discourse beyond “genocide; colonialism; apartheid; imperialism”. Please, for the love of god. Try. When you use cheap logic, all you do is give more fodder to IDF --and I’m not a fan of IDF.
If I take your claim and analyze it logically it’s not sound at all. The typical numbers game to counter whether the occupation is justified: More civilians dead = IDF bad. Pause. Think about this statement for a second. Do we measure justification for war based on the number of casualties incurred? When the allies bombed Dresden, did we find reason to defeat the Nazis even though many civilian casualties occurred? Yes, a calculated risk was made.
The question is: What ought the IDF do in this scenario with Hamas perpetually shelling them with rockets by planting themselves in civilian areas?
Sorry… you’re comparing what Israel is doing right now to what allies did to a city in the country that was itself perpetrating the genocide? A country that was also itself invading Allied nations?
Is this opposite day or something?
Nop. I’m contesting your logic. Not comparing the countries. We are examining whether your logic holds up to scrutiny.
I don’t even know what you think my logic is beyond “the more innocent people you kill, the less morally justified your position becomes.”
Can you give an example of when that is not the case? Because I don’t know too many people who think that the bombing of Dresden was morally justified.
Ok, so if Hamas kills more people that automatically makes Israel’s actions justified?
If it was proportional? If it didn’t involve innocents? Yes.
Proportionality is international law: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-51
Gotta love this thinking here.
So tell me, should the US have stopped attacking Japan once they’d matched the ~2.4k soldiers killed at Pearl Harbor?
Or should the allies have stopped “genociding” Nazi Germany once they’d matched Hitler’s body count?
OF COURSE NOT. This isn’t about tit for tat. Especially when going after an enemy that is openly committee to your annihilation. Israel certainly appears to be doing a shit job of it, but there is no need to muddy the waters with specious arguments.