Civilians who die during war rarely have any responsibility for the things their leader do.
What say did the average russian citizen have in putin's choice to invade Ukraine? And yet we are largely ok with ukraine bombing russia, killing some of those civilians in the process. That is the way of war.
I believe we should focus on things that are violations of the rules of war, not civilian death in its entirety. Otherwise we are just saying war is evil, as innocents have died in pretty much every war. A true point perhaps but kind of useless. It also raises the question of what one should do when confronted with war? Just roll over and die.
It has been alleged that Israel has violated rules of war. If true and backed up by evidence, it should be condemed for such violation. But civilian deaths are not a violation of the rules of war. They can be under certain circumstances, but they aren't in and of themselves.
Civilian deaths are a violation if they are intentional - and Israel has repeatedly, deliberately targeted civilians, including children. There is an abundance of evidence, and yes you are right that they should be condemned - except Israel and their stooges always cry "antisemitism!", before going straight back to more war crimes and genocide.
Not to mention how Israel has destroyed nearly every (or every, now?) hospital in Gaza to prevent civilians from being treated. Or how Israel haa prevented aid from entering Gaza. Or how bulldozer drivers drive over hundreds of Palestinians, dead and alive. Or... gods, there is so much more, Israel is a deeply sick society.
> Civilian deaths are a violation if they are intentional
Well close, they are a violation if that is the intended goal of the attack, they are not necessarily a violation if they were done intentionally as part of an attack against a military target and the porportional military gain outweighs the expected civilian damage (this is a bit of an oversimplification)
> There is an abundance of evidence,
I think this overstates things. There is definite evidence that civilians have died. Whether there is evidence that those deaths were the illegal under the rules of war is much more ambigious. There is probably evidence for some isolated incidents, i'm not sure i agree there is strong (i.e. sufficient for a conviction) of widespread illegal civilian death. I'm not saying it for sure didn't happen, just that the publicly available evidence is mixed and often requires making unverified assumptions. (Truth is the first casualty of war)
Isolated incidents?! We've seen daily war crimes just on social media for the past year! The Hind Rajab foundation alone* has found clear evidence of war crimes committed by over one thousand individuals - that's just the ones that were stupid enough to post blatant war crimes on Facebook/Instagram and have been identified! The process to identify many, many more is ongoing.
Come on now, there is a wealth of evidence of institutionalised war crimes, and you know it.
* BTW, the Hind Rajab foundation was setup after Israel deliberately targeted and killed a 5-year old girl (along with family members, and even paramedics who tried to help).
For any cases where there is solid evidence, i hope the perpetrators face appropriate justice.
However the Hind Rajab foundation isn't exactly a neutral party here. There is nothing wrong with that, its important to have non-neutral parties to push justisce forward. However i would view them the same way i might view a persecutor in a normal court case - they are trying to prove the guy did it, but i'm not convinced until some sort of more neutral party weighs in (ideally a judge during a trial, but failing that even more neutral academics/civil society groups)
> For any cases where there is solid evidence, i hope the perpetrators face appropriate justice.
Yeah, you are trying to make it sound as if these are isolated incidents. There is plenty of evidence that this was a systematic campaign of extermination, this is why the ICC is seeking arrests for Israel's leadership.
To quote the ICC press release: "On the basis of material presented by the Prosecution covering the period until 20 May 2024, the Chamber could not determine that all elements of the crime against humanity of extermination were met"
> * BTW, the Hind Rajab foundation was setup after Israel deliberately targeted and killed a 5-year old girl (along with family members, and even paramedics who tried to help).
IDF soldiers, singing: "there are no schools in Gaza, because there are no kids in Gaza", posing with underwear of women they displaced, saturating TikTok with war crime videos, blowing up infrastructure with controlled demolition en masse.
I mean, that's my point? Innocense should be presumed, but Israel says "that hospital is a terrorist hotbed of evil!", the western media parrots it verbatim, and then the IDF blows up a hospital - all without credible evidence, and sometimes with fabricated evidence.
You are acting like this is an either-or, but its not. You can presume innocence for both alleged crimes.
It is entirely logically consistent to say - i do not have enough evidence to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that hamas was illegally using this particular hospital for military purposes when israel blew it up. Without proof of that, its unfair to conclude the hamas violated the rules of war.
And at the same time say: i don't have reasonable grounds to conclude that israel didn't have evidence to conclude the hospital had lost its protected status due to being used in hostilities. Thus i can't conclude that israel violated the laws of war either.
Presuming innocence doesn't mean you take one side over another. It means you presume neither side comitted a crime until you see evidence to the contrary.
> i don't have reasonable grounds to conclude that israel didn't have evidence to conclude the hospital had lost its protected status due to being used in hostilities. Thus i can't conclude that israel violated the laws of war either.
That is... quite preposterous.
In any case, if the IDF had even one iota of credible evidence, they would put it out there - instead, all they put out are lies and deception, like the ridiculous 3D animation of Al-Shifa hospital, the Arabic calendar that was claimed to be a list of hostages, verifiable planted evidence, or most hilarious of all, the numerous pristine copies of Mein Kampf.
So let's examine the evidence shall we?
1. The IDF has not published any credible evidence that Hamas have used any hospital for resistance purposes
2. The IDF has repeatedly been caught fabricating evidence
3. International doctors working at hospitals in Gaza say they have seen no evidence of Hamas in hospitals
4. The IDF has now destroyed, damaged or otherwise decommissioned every hospital in Gaza, even going as far as smashing up medical equipment left behind and setting fire to evacuated buildings
5. The IDF itself has illegally set up bases of military operations inside Gazan hospitals it's decommissioned
6. The IDF has been embarking on a campaign of genocide, purposely destroying civilian infrastructure, such as water facilities, power plants, banks etc
7. The IDF recently tried the exact same thing in Lebanon, where they have been destroying civilian other infrastructure, and then made false claims to "justify" bombing a hospital - but they failed, as they were unable to control the media in Lebanon and they showed it was just a regular hospital
8. We've seen IDF soldiers, in their own words on social media, talk about "exterminating" Palestinians for over a year - so the IDF isn't exactly a credible organisation
9. We've seen IDF war crimes with our own eyes and ears almost daily for over a year - so the IDF isn't exactly a credible organisation
10. We've seen Israeli politicians and TV personalities spread hatred and racism, and issue clearly genocidal statements almost daily for over a year - so the state of Israel, also an aparheid state, isn't exactly a credible organisation
What say did the average russian citizen have in putin's choice to invade Ukraine? And yet we are largely ok with ukraine bombing russia, killing some of those civilians in the process. That is the way of war.
I believe we should focus on things that are violations of the rules of war, not civilian death in its entirety. Otherwise we are just saying war is evil, as innocents have died in pretty much every war. A true point perhaps but kind of useless. It also raises the question of what one should do when confronted with war? Just roll over and die.
It has been alleged that Israel has violated rules of war. If true and backed up by evidence, it should be condemed for such violation. But civilian deaths are not a violation of the rules of war. They can be under certain circumstances, but they aren't in and of themselves.