Captains argument word for word: But it is a genocide? Plenty of israeli officials including netanyahu himself have called for the complete extinction and erasure of palestinians. And it has been made very clear that his ambition and thst of alot of israeli officials is that of the complete occupation of palestinian territory.
Not to mention the indiscriminate bombimg of civilian i frastructure. Which if nothing else amounts to serious violations of the geneva convention and unquestionable war crime charges.
It seems to be compulsory to include becuase of how most of these convos go nowadays 😅 but this isnt to condone hamas in any way shape or form. Counter action was most definatley called for after the hamas oct attack. Its the proportionality of the response and the lack of effort to minimise palestinian civilian deaths that people have issue with. There id a plethora of video evidence available of israeli soldiers indiscriminantly firing on and killing civilians. There is also plenty of evidence of Israeli troops laughing and taking pride in slaughtering women children and the elderly.
If anything this to me atleast has shown that their needs to be serious investigations into both goverments, or i guess whatever we class hamas as? Terrorist government?
( I will no go paragraph by paragraph to break down his argument)
“ But it is a genocide? Plenty of israeli officials including netanyahu himself have called for the complete extinction and erasure of palestinians. And it has been made very clear that his ambition and thst of alot of israeli officials is that of the complete occupation of palestinian territory.”
Debunk: It is undeniable that some Israeli officials, including Netanyahu, have made concerning statements about Palestinians. However, it is unfair to label the situation as genocide without carefully examining the legal definition and intent behind their words. While the statements made by Israeli officials are indeed troubling, it is crucial to distinguish between heated political language and a systematic, deliberate plan to exterminate an entire group of people. Genocide is a specific legal term with well-defined criteria, and we must be cautious not to dilute its meaning. It is important to approach this complex issue with nuance and precision. While condemnation of inflammatory rhetoric and examination of Israeli policies are warranted, we must be careful not to mischaracterize the situation as genocide without robust evidence of systematic intent to destroy the Palestinian population as such. Accusations of genocide carry significant legal and moral weight, and they should be made responsibly and accurately.
Premise 1: Define genocide as extermination of an entire ethnic, national, or religious group
Premise 2: Define inflammatory political as language or speech that is deliberately provocative, often intended to strengthen opinions, especially in a political context.
Conclusion 1: Inflammatory rhetoric ≠ call for genocide
“ Not to mention the indiscriminate bombimg of civilian i frastructure. Which if nothing else amounts to serious violations of the geneva convention and unquestionable war crime charges.”
Debunk: While it is unfortunate when civilians are harmed during conflicts, it is sometimes a necessary consequence of warfare. Military targets can be embedded within civilian infrastructure, making it difficult to avoid collateral damage. This does not automatically equate to intentional war crimes.
It's a complex issue where military strategies often involve hitting infrastructure that supports enemy forces, even if it's located in civilian areas. The intent is not to harm civilians but to weaken the enemy's capabilities. In the fog of war, it can be challenging to ensure that only military targets are hit, leading to unintended damage. but the reality of war is messy and chaotic. While it's ideal to minimize harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure, in practice, it can be challenging to always adhere strictly to these principles, especially in modern warfare where enemies may hide among civilian populations. Sometimes military objectives require difficult decisions that may lead to unintended casualties.
Premise 1: Hamas hides in civilian infrastructures
Premise 2: military are allowed to attack places that houses enemy soldiers especially on battlefield: https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/law3_final.pdf
Conclusion 1: we are able to distinguish collateral damage to just killing innocent civilians just cause.
“ It seems to be compulsory to include becuase of how most of these convos go nowadays 😅 but this isnt to condone hamas in any way shape or form. Counter action was most definatley called for after the hamas oct attack. Its the proportionality of the response and the lack of effort to minimise palestinian civilian deaths that people have issue with. There id a plethora of video evidence available of israeli soldiers indiscriminantly firing on and killing civilians. There is also plenty of evidence of Israeli troops laughing and taking pride in slaughtering women children and the elderly.”
Debunk: The actions of certain soldiers should not be used to condemn an entire nation. It is unfair and unjust to hold all of Israel accountable for the actions of a few individuals. Each soldier should be judged based on their own actions, not as representatives of an entire country. While accountability is critical, it is essential to differentiate between individual responsibility and collective guilt. Condemning an entire nation for the actions of a few does not promote justice, but rather perpetuates unfair biases and prejudices. Shouldn't we focus on holding the perpetrators themselves accountable instead of attributing their actions to an entire nation? While it is crucial to address systemic issues and hold institutions accountable for fostering a culture of violence, it is equally important to approach the situation with nuance and not generalize the actions of a few to an entire nation. By focusing on individual accountability and promoting a culture of respect for human rights within the military, lasting change can be achieved. Shouldn't we strive for a balanced approach that addresses both individual responsibility and systemic change?
Conclusion: uhhh yea soldiers do that in war in every country and conflict. It sucks 🦦
Comments
The actions of certain soldiers should not be used to condemn an entire nation
The irony of this...given the sitaution.
Yall really dont see how big a hypocrites do you.
Let me put it simply. If a nation (israel) had spent my whole life, murdering my countrymen, attacking my country and claiming they want to ethnically clense me. Especially after they had forced their presence into my country and. Occupied a large portion of it. I would condone attacks on them too.
You know im going to side with the hague on this. Ya like to tgve passed
Sent to early 😭 yall like to justify the murder of women and children and claim the oct attack as your reasoning. Israelis have been murdering paleatinians for decades and there is a plethora of proof of this. Weve all seen first hand accounts. Where was your outrage then? Or are you only outraged now hamas retaliated against years of systematic abuse and murder?
Just say your islamophobic and will condone the mistreatment of muslims bro.
The irony of this...given the sitaution.
Yall really dont see how big a hypocrites do you.
Let me put it simply. If a nation (israel) had spent my whole life, murdering my countrymen, attacking my country and claiming they want to ethnically clense me. Especially after they had forced their presence into my country and. Occupied a large portion of it. I would condone attacks on them too.
You know im going to side with the hague on this. Ya like to tgve passed