Adding to the mountain of evidence that Israel is engaged in a genocidal war on the Gaza Strip, Al Jazeera on Thursday aired footage of what the news outlet reported was an Israeli drone targeting four Palestinians in Khan Younis last month.
Those killed by the unmanned aerial vehicle in the rubble of the southern Gaza city appear to be unarmed teenagers or young men. According to a translation of the coverage, they were not identified in the reporting.
Tariq Kenney-Shawa, Al-Shabaka’s U.S. policy fellow, said: “This is among the worst footage I’ve seen. Not only were these boys clearly unarmed and present no threat whatsoever, but they were struck multiple times even after stumbling/crawling away. There is no way they could have been considered combatants. This is unreal.”
The problem is that according to due process, you need to prove somebody is guilty of something before they are jailed. These people weren’t jailed, they were basically executed from a distance. The burden of proof is on the Israeli military to prove that they WERE Hamas, not on people horrified by the footage to prove the negative. And so far (and historically) the IDF seems to not care to do so, and in lots of cases have given “proof” as justification for one action or another that later turned out to be bullshit.
Not to mention the numerous cases of the IDF killing people in “Press” vests and helmets, or people literally actively waving a white flag. In my opinion, they don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt given their record.
Staying on the topic at hand, and only that, this is war. Killing an enemy on the field has no system of public review. Everything is internal. Neither IDF or Hammas has to provide proof of anything to anybody for any reason except when propagandantistic PR is at play (like you mentioned). At least not now. There will surely be tribunals after this war is “settled.” The only direction proof goes is up the chain of command. I won’t pretend to understand the complexity of target selection and acquisition (especially foreign nations and certainly not terrorists), but I know that that’s how it works. There is no burden of proof, whatsoever.
Those are the cold facts.
Opinion, etc: I hope you don’t read this as some kind of defence or exoneration of any malicious, evil, callous, or accidental killing commited of innocents. I unequivocally do not want or excuse killing civilians. Anyone who does is hideously evil. However, I think a reality check is necessary.
The “burden of proof” is a security blanket most of the world enjoys and vaguely understands. When they see some horrible violence of war, fed to them without context by compromised sources, it’s easy to make assumptions and demand justice. And many of those times, you should, just ideally without the assumptions and propaganda. This isn’t one of this times. I know that the IDF is commiting war crimes, but this video is just war.
Killing obvious civilians is a warcrime. While there are circumstances where this is ambiguous, this example isn’t - Israel needs to overcome the very reasonable conclusion that these were civilians and prove that they were enemy combatants.
Understanding that 60-70% of the Palestinians Israel have killed are children, this will be a tall order.
What makes it obvious?
I think that person has very strong pre-concieved notions… At this point a rock on the ground is “evidence” to them that the rock is in cahoots with Israel, because children in Gaza, because obviously.
That video is evidence of nothing, but certain death of 4 unknown people, at an unknown location, recorded at unknown point in time.
Again, disclaimer: There’s an active genocide in Gaza, performed by Israel against Palestinians. Hamas is a terrorist organisation.
The video shows 4 people in civilian clothes casually wandering along chatting while unarmed.
Putting aside the thousands upon thousands literal children Israel has slaughtered in the past few months while spewing genocidal rhetoric (because Hamas?), what evidence do you have that this isn’t a warcrime and that they’re combatants? The video contains absolutely nothing suggesting anything of the sort, and no evidence has been presented.
When people say they want to commit a genocide, then kill tens of thousands of civilians, I tend to believe them - why are you so incredulous?
Stop being hung up on the unarmed thing. All the badguys in movies are armed to make it clear to the audience and make it “justified”. Unarmed soldiers and military personnel make up a much larger chunk of casualties than you realize. Terrorists don’t just toss their guns to the side and claim immunity. They are still targets.
Anyway, I’ve made my points clear, I’ve explained various things using traceable, sound logic. You seem to have to not read it or comprehended it. I’m not going to waste my time with unreasonable, volatile people.
Literally zero evidence that this killing is justified in the context of a genocide that the Israeli government and IDF won’t shut up about, where the majority of their targets are women and children.
Don’t go pretending you know a thing about reason or that you’ve made any meaningful point whatsoever.
You still really don’t understand how evidence works, huh?
They aren’t listening, they’re reacting, like the others.
Where’s the evidence justifying the killing of these people? Or do we not care about the rule of law?
I guess in the context of the genocide Israel is committing there’s not much room for that kind of thing.
You kill a bunch of people, you’d better be damn sure it’s justifiable - you know - by looking at the evidence. Basic rule of law stuff.
Where’s the evidence? We both know there isn’t any - much like there’s nothing that would justify Israel’s broader genocide.
How do you think evidence works?
“Know” lmao.
“Basic”, but too complex for you to understand.
Feel free to reach out if you’d like to take a break from defending warcrimes by a genocidal regime and provide any evidence.
What you are saying is just not true.
You can’t go and kill unarmed, non combative, un-uniformed people however you’d like.
You do need to prove that the people you are killing are actually combatants. Especially when you send a missile down someone’s head just walking on the street.
You’re right, you can’t do that.
Also you’re wrong, you don’t need to prove that. At least not publicly which is what you seem to be implying. Intelligence has to prove that these people, or some of them, are Hamas, likely of some significance, maybe not. Then they have to be identified, monitored, and tracked for a strike opportunity. Then, when the entire chain of command is in agreement that that’s their guy and this is the best time, they attack.
In your version, the drone operator seems to have infinite ammo and gleeful fire-at-will orders. Killing anyone who is “just walking down the street.” Maybe the soldiers on the ground operate that way, but not drones or jets.
“In your version, the drone operator seems to have infinite ammo and gleeful fire-at-will orders. Killing anyone who is “just walking down the street.” Maybe the soldiers on the ground operate that way, but not drones or jets.”
Where are you getting this story from? I sure as hell didn’t even come close to mention or talk about anything of the sort.
And regarding your statement
“Intelligence has to prove that these people, or some of them, are Hamas, likely of some significance, maybe not. Then they have to be identified, monitored, and tracked for a strike opportunity. Then, when the entire chain of command is in agreement that that’s their guy and this is the best time, they attack.”
Do you have any source for that being the way they operate at every single strike. Any source that this is how it went down from what we saw? Or are you just guessing?
My money is on the later.
Why do you assume there’s no proof?
Why do you assume I have that assumption?
Because of this sentence:
It’s absolutely true. We don’t know if IDF is collecting proof or not. And IDF absolutely does not need to provide proof to the public. Only to the people who are investigating the war. (Just like the person you are replying to stated)
“Neither IDF or Hammas has to provide proof of anything to anybody for any reason except when propagandantistic PR is at play”
That is simply not true. They do have to provide proof to somebody. You said so yourself. To the ones investigating. I can assure you. They are definatly included in these “anybody”
Why did you cut off the next sentence in the quote?