The beauty of the rules based order is that it does a magic transmutation where nothing done legally can be violent whereas everything done illegally is violent by definition
But also "legally" means "I, the protagonist of the universe, want to do it and as the self-appointed arbiter of such things formally say I get to do it as a treat" and "illegally" means "I do not like this and as the supreme arbiter of the universe unilaterally say it's bad and super not cool."
Is it true that if someone takes a kid hostage, you're justified in killing the kid? Sounds fucked up, the idea that killing someone who is doing Bad Things is more important than protecting the life of an innocent child. Hmm. Not sure about this "international rules based" order the crackers keep talking about.
i don't think it is written in the statutes that you can. Israeli lawyers argue for their right to & to designate human shields as 'consensual' Israel isn't party to Hostages Convention either
One of the really fascinating things about October 7th was that Israel's top priority was openly "preventing Hamas from getting in", with all other considerations, like the preservation of Israeli life, coming second. Then you read stories about helicopters firing missiles without targeting carefully or those girls in tanks firing on kibbutz homes without a clear idea of who is inside, and it becomes an inevitable conclusion that the civilian death toll (such as it even existed, since there was a heavy military presence there) was almost entirely Israel's fault on an immediate level, even before getting into "Their policies made the attack inevitable" and such
stories about helicopters firing missiles without targeting carefully or those girls in tanks firing on kibbutz homes without a clear idea of who is inside
Does anyone have a 'reputable' (i.e. Western or at least Al Jazeera) source for both of these? I need to show some people.
This is so psychopathic. Why would anyone care about a system of laws which permits killing a child? Who in the world cares about the distinction between "legally killed child" and "murdered child"? Who could read that sentence and think anything other than "whatever laws they are referring to are utterly worthless"?
An infanticide that no one can see is also going to attract suspicion.
Then what the fuck has been happening? 15,000 dead kids isn't infanticide? Its been clear as fucking day to see from the start and throughout the history of Israel's occupation of Palestine. We're way beyond the point of growing suspicious. Fuck these people...
The whole human shields thing is pure projection. We've seen plenty of examples of isntreal doing it but none of Palestinians doing it. They'll bomb a fucking hospital and claim that hamas was storing weapons there and therefore hamas was using the people as human shields.....but then they can't produce any convincing evidence that there were weapons there in the first place.
Always projection. The west kills kids and don't want to feel bad about it so blame the fucking people getting killed. Classic.
We've seen plenty of examples of isntreal doing it
That's the other thing; the fact that isntraelis do it means that Hamas would go out of their way to avoid civilian casualties, so why would Hamas intentionally use human shields? The fact that the IOF believe that they can make effective use of human shields means that they know it would stop Hamas firing on them because Hamas would try and minimize civilian casualties.
I know that 15.000 dead children is bad optics but what if each of these kids were human shields, jumping to take a bullet for Mr. Hamas? That would also explain why the IOF hasn't been able to get Hamas yet, as they need to mow down these legions of kids first just to get a clear shot.
Actually they've been selectively bred to evolve teleportation, this way they can be much better human shields jumping from one bullet to another 100m away at the blink of an eye
I was listening to NPR the other night, and a guest explained that the reason that 2/3 of people killed in Gaza are women and children is that Hamas used them all as human shields
I know there's a lot of noise being made about liberals' legality and civility fetish, but this is some Sorkin-on-steroids, bordering sovereign citizen "the law is like a magic spell" level of confusion.
I get a paywall from the Atlantic but I searched around and I think the author is Graeme Wood
Graeme Charles Arthur Wood (born August 21, 1979, in Polk County, Minnesota) is an American staff writer for The Atlantic and a lecturer in political science at Yale University since 2014. Prior to his staff writer position he was a contributing editor to The Atlantic, and he has also written for The Cambodia Daily, The New Yorker, The American Scholar, The New Republic, Bloomberg Businessweek, Culture+Travel, The Wall Street Journal and the International Herald Tribune. He served as books editor of Pacific Standard. He was awarded the 2015-2016 Edward R. Murrow Press Fellowship of the Council on Foreign Relations and a 2009 Reporting Fellowship Grant from the South Asian Journalists Association.
I wish this author would uno reverse it at the end and add a note to remind readers our own government 'October 7ths' many countries all the time and that readers should hug their kids every day in anticipation of an Israel level or near enough response, but obviously this is nowhere near the intent.
After monitoring my portfolio performance, EXPERT ELOISE WILBERT ON INSTAGRAM blew me away $70k in the last two quarters alone, I learned why these experienced traders make huge profits from the seemingly unknown market.. Also on INSTAGRAM EXPERT ELOISE WILBERT