The European Union on Sunday condemned Hamas for using "hospitals and civilians as human shields" in Gaza, while also urging Israel to show "maximum restraint" to protect civilians.
For most people, I think that the problem isn’t with Hamas being held responsible. The problem is that people bearing the brunt of Hamas’ and Israeli actions aren’t members of Hamas - they’remedical personnel and patients and civilians in general.
Just like in this case when you’re an Israeli and you’re in government you have been given power. Power and authority is a gift, with strings attached. Your paystub and government funded car and badge is not a whore to be abused.
Of course they are. Why else would you set up in a hospital? Doing so (turning hospital into a command post or using a marked ambulance to transport fighters or weapons) is against international law. If it is true that Hamas is doing that in these exact examples and not merely as a general practice), those buildings and vehicles are legal military targets. I was in the business and I’m familiar with all of the arguments and justifications.
What it comes down to, legally, is whether the response was proportional to the threat and whether every attempt was made to restrict damage to civilian infrastructure and persons. Just as a hypothetical example, using an F-16 to drop two bombs on a populated hospital because there’s a couple of snipers on the 6th floor would be a disproportionate response. Using a rocket propelled grenade against that window/room is more proportional, even if there were patients in the same room. Killing them with counter-sniper fire so as to save those patients but still eliminate the threat is the most proportional.
The other dimension, though, is the moral culpability (if you believe in free will) or at least the functional responsibility (if you do not) of designing and launching an operation in which massive amounts of civilian casualties and misery will be caused. I don’t see that enough.
I think it was Aquinas who laid out one of the early versions of just war theory. One of the main points is that the intended outcome must be proportional to the harms caused.
What people are questioning is whether a particular encounter or the operation in general were necessary and proportional.
I appreciate the well reasoned response. Whether this is an appropriate or balanced response from Israel, I don’t really know, but I’m tired of everyone demanding they be the bigger people, and completely ignoring the actions of Hamas.
You’re ignoring the massive power imbalance. You expect people to cast out blame to 2 equal sides, when that really isn’t the case. Isreal as a so-called democratic nationstate should be held to a higher standard than a band of extremists.
I think you misunderstood me. All I’m saying is that Israel as a state should be held to a higher standard than a terrorist group. With what’s happening in Gaza they are clearly not any more just or civilized.
For most people, I think that the problem isn’t with Hamas being held responsible. The problem is that people bearing the brunt of Hamas’ and Israeli actions aren’t members of Hamas - they’remedical personnel and patients and civilians in general.
deleted by creator
Just like in this case when you’re an Israeli and you’re in government you have been given power. Power and authority is a gift, with strings attached. Your paystub and government funded car and badge is not a whore to be abused.
Yeah, because they’re being used as human shields.
Of course they are. Why else would you set up in a hospital? Doing so (turning hospital into a command post or using a marked ambulance to transport fighters or weapons) is against international law. If it is true that Hamas is doing that in these exact examples and not merely as a general practice), those buildings and vehicles are legal military targets. I was in the business and I’m familiar with all of the arguments and justifications.
What it comes down to, legally, is whether the response was proportional to the threat and whether every attempt was made to restrict damage to civilian infrastructure and persons. Just as a hypothetical example, using an F-16 to drop two bombs on a populated hospital because there’s a couple of snipers on the 6th floor would be a disproportionate response. Using a rocket propelled grenade against that window/room is more proportional, even if there were patients in the same room. Killing them with counter-sniper fire so as to save those patients but still eliminate the threat is the most proportional.
The other dimension, though, is the moral culpability (if you believe in free will) or at least the functional responsibility (if you do not) of designing and launching an operation in which massive amounts of civilian casualties and misery will be caused. I don’t see that enough.
I think it was Aquinas who laid out one of the early versions of just war theory. One of the main points is that the intended outcome must be proportional to the harms caused.
What people are questioning is whether a particular encounter or the operation in general were necessary and proportional.
I appreciate the well reasoned response. Whether this is an appropriate or balanced response from Israel, I don’t really know, but I’m tired of everyone demanding they be the bigger people, and completely ignoring the actions of Hamas.
You’re ignoring the massive power imbalance. You expect people to cast out blame to 2 equal sides, when that really isn’t the case. Isreal as a so-called democratic nationstate should be held to a higher standard than a band of extremists.
Removed by mod
I think you misunderstood me. All I’m saying is that Israel as a state should be held to a higher standard than a terrorist group. With what’s happening in Gaza they are clearly not any more just or civilized.
Removed by mod
Ah ok you’re a troll. Bye.