“These attacks violate the human right to life, absent any indication that the victims posed an imminent lethal threat to anyone else at the time.”

  • OccamsRazer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Israel deserves criticism for indiscriminately bombing the general location where terrorists live, and accepting that civilian casualties are part of the deal, but then people continue to criticize a sophisticated and precision attack against the enemy combatants with an absolute minimum of civilian casualties. Seems like people think Israel has no right to defend itself at all, and makes you wonder if it’s just good old fashioned anti semitism.

    • Madison420@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Sure let’s ignore the whole in a country they aren’t at war with thing.

      I don’t know what country you live in but if someone bombed my neighborhood to take out a single person people would be rightly outraged.

  • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    9 hours ago

    Does launching rockets at Israel violate international law?

    Did the kids killed by rockets in a soccer field pose an imminent lethal threat?

    • Madison420@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      You say they’re terrorists if I’m not mistaken.

      Why then would you judge morality against what you say is immoral? I think like every mainstream religious text ever has something about two wrongs don’t make a right.

      • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        First of all, I never said Hezbollah are terrorists.

        More important, this is about legality not morality. Governments adhere to the laws of armed conflict not out morality, but because they want their enemies to adhere to them. International law is always transactional.

        So if a government doesn’t adhere to the laws of armed conflict, then its enemies won’t adhere to them either. That’s pretty much the only enforcement mechanism, by the way.