105
submitted 1 day ago by NightOwl@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] DarthJon@lemmy.world 0 points 16 hours ago

Thanks for acknowledging this simple reality, that the IDF broke the law.> I have no idea if any of their actions have broken the law. I was acknowledging that they are accountable for their behavior.

Yeah, so no country should ask its military to perpetrate a war. And by that I mean no country should be starting a war> It's figure of speech. In this context I was using it as a synonym for "carry out." But if you're implying that Israel started this war, that just has no basis in reality.

Thanks for acknowledging this simple reality, that the IDF broke the law.
I was acknowledging that they are accountable for their behavior.

Well, thank you for at least acknowledging that.

I have no idea if any of their actions have broken the law.

In that case, allow me to provide some sources on this matter,

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-10-15/ty-article/.premium/idf-soldiers-attacked-military-police-at-gunpoint-for-arresting-comrades-at-sde-teiman/00000192-904d-d2db-ab97-dddd31dd0000

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-08-04/ty-article/.premium/prosecution-seeks-extended-custody-of-five-israeli-soldiers-suspected-of-sde-teiman-abuse/00000191-1caf-db97-a7df-fcffecc00000

https://thehill.com/policy/international/4630363-us-israeli-military-violated-human-rights/ (though this last one is about accusations that predate the current conflict)

Yeah, so no country should ask its military to perpetrate a war. And by that I mean no country should be starting a war
It’s figure of speech. In this context I was using it as a synonym for “carry out.”

Ok, clear on your meaning now.

But if you’re implying that Israel started this war, that just has no basis in reality.

No, got confused from the ambiguity above. I think we are agreed, that Hamas clearly started it first. The question in my mind now is, in retaliating against Hamas in self defense, if the IDF is going too fast and too hard - with the result that they're failing to minimize civilian casualties to the fullest extend possible.

[-] DarthJon@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

I don't disagree that some soldiers engage in reprehensible behavior. That's pretty standard in war. But that wasn't what I have in mind when people say things like "Israel is committing war crimes." That has a much different connotation to it.

Oh, and I realized later that I chose the wrong word. I actually meant to say 'prosecute' rather than 'perpetrate'. My bad.

The question in my mind now is, in retaliating against Hamas in self defense, if the IDF is going too fast and too hard - with the result that they’re failing to minimize civilian casualties to the fullest extend possible.> That is absolutely a valid question. But most people don't pose it as a question. They think they are experts on warfare and can make a judgment about the morality of the war based on photos of destroyed buildings or abstract death toll numbers. And let's face it, most people who are critical of the war are staunchly anti-Israel and don't think Israel should have responded at all. Many people also don't understand the big picture. They think this war is just, as you suggest, retaliation for 10/7. But it isn't. If it were, it would have been more like 2014 - quick, a couple thousand dead, move on.

The attack on 10/7 made Israel realize that it can no longer tolerate genocidal enemies on its borders. The approach to Hamas and Hezbollah had always been containment - Israel can tolerate the occasional rocket attack or one-off terror attack, as long as that's it. But 10/7 was a wake-up call and Israel has decided they can't be tolerated anymore. But even more than that, it's about moving towards a new Middle East. Sinwar decided to pull off this attack when he did because he wanted to put a stop to the Abraham Accords. His hope was that the rest of the Islamist world would join in and fully destroy Israel, but if they didn't do that at least the moderate Muslim countries would see how evil Israel is and abandon the Accords to side with their radical brothers. Israel sees an opportunity here to seriously weaken the Iranian regime, which will allow the Accords to proceed. I truly believe we are seeing history being made right now. This war will ultimately usher in a new era of peace in the Middle East.

But that wasn’t what I have in mind when people say things like “Israel is committing war crimes.” That has a much different connotation to it.

It does have a different connotation to it - as if the gov't of Israel was officially allowing and condoning such "reprehensible behavior" as you put it. However, even if it's against official policy, if the majority of troops are ignoring the laws of their own country's gov't and rules of their own country's military to commit this "reprehensible behavior", then a lot of folks will think that country should be accountable. But this can easily morph to the former statement if one isn't careful about nuance.

I actually meant to say ‘prosecute’ rather than ‘perpetrate’. My bad.

Ah, no worries. Though that word is potentially even more confusing - you must mean in the sense of "pursue until finished" as per https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prosecute but it also has the meaning of bringing legal action about. Which would imply that the war is legal, which could be stretched further to imply that it's just. Of course, I'd hesitate to go that far on either point (legal or just).

They think this war is just, as you suggest, retaliation for 10/7. But it isn’t. If it were, it would have been more like 2014 - quick, a couple thousand dead, move on.

I thought the same, actually. I could go as far as agreeing that a simple retaliation is legal and just, but since this is not that...

Many people also don’t understand the big picture.

Clearly I'm still not getting it.

That’s pretty standard in war.

That's kind of the problem, though, isn't it?

They think they are experts on warfare and can make a judgment about the morality of the war

Well though, if not the people, then who can make these judgement? Who is empowered to decide this?

Sinwar decided to pull off this attack when he did because he wanted to put a stop to the Abraham Accords.

Agreed. The evidence I've seen so far agrees with this.

Israel sees an opportunity here to seriously weaken the Iranian regime, which will allow the Accords to proceed.

I support the Accords. But I still worry about innocent civilians - such as Gazans and Palestinians who just want to sit this one out and live their lives, or the hostages taken on 10/7. And if the beef was just with Iran, why are these folks getting caught in the middle? (Of course it's not just Iran, Hamas is based in Gaza, but if one can easily confuse the Iranian regime with Hamas, then perhaps it's easier to confuse Hamas with people from Gaza more generally, which leads to innocent civilians being wrongly treated like hostile military opponents.)

Israel has decided they can’t be tolerated anymore.

And no doubt Israel will win this, but I worry about the human sacrifice required from the innocent.

this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
105 points (96.5% liked)

Canada

7163 readers
239 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Regions


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social & Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS