scottie said:
Sorry, why should I care what this guy has to say?
Because he is the guy that the UN have nominated to investigate what happened during the "2008-2009" war, he is way more knowledgable than you in this case.
He was picked to decide if the actions were illegal. I do not care about legal/illegal, I care about moral/immoral. Hence I do not care about his opinion.
1) The UN is biased against Israel.
Israel is a foreign force occupying territory which it took through war.
What country in the world isn't?
You're an Australian you know, Austraila is also an "occupied country", just like the USA, and a lot of other countries worldwide, who were occupied at some point of time.
I am critical of the British colonisation of Australia. I am extremely critical of any British who killed Aboriginal non combatants, as am I of any Aboriginees who killed British civilians in order to protect their country.
If the UN were biased against Israel, it would have sent in soldiers to kick Israel out.
...What?
What you said make no sense, the fact that the UN is biased against Israel should pretty much be obvious (did you know that Israel has 80% of the UN's commitee for human right's condemnations? Considering countries like North Korea exist, and that Iran government executes gay pepole... it's pretty wierd, don't you think?)
Sorry, which countries have North Korea and Iran been occupying for the past 60 odd years? Fact is, killing your own civilians is judged to be morally acceptable under certain circumstances by a substantial amount of the UN, killing the civilians of another country is not. That is why the Arab-Israeli conflict receives so much UN attention.
The fact is, the US is Israel's closest ally, and the US (incase you didn't notice) has the power of veto. To argue that the US is biased against Israel is to argue that the US is biased against Israel.
2)
Side a deliberately targets civilians, killing 5 of them
Side b picks a strategy which has the unintentional side effect that 5 civilians die.
Are you really going to argue that side b is morally superior to side a? Both sides picked an action which they knew would lead to 5 civilian deaths. That in one case the deaths are the main effect and in the other it is a side effect is mere semantics, which may be good enough for a court of law but it is far from good enough for a legitimate moral stance.
So do you argue that Side b should just... let more of their pepole die? Or use less effective measures?
This isn't a game you know, and it isn't Semantics.
@ bolded. Of course it is not a game Are you attempting to portray my point of view as silly? And the debate over wether the deaths were intentional or accidental but predicatble is completely unimportant to me.
I don't understand how people can claim that the Israeli government and army is innocent, and just defending themselves, and then also argue that Hamas is immoral. Nor can I understand anyone who argues that the Israeli govt/army is immoral and that Hamas is fine. In my eyes one murderer is as bas as another.
No one claims they were innocent, however, if you would've read the original post, you would've realized that Israel constantly checks itself, tries to reduce civilian casualties to the bare minimum, and put it's own war criminals under judgement, while the Hamas does nothing of that, because they want to kill as many Israeli civilians as they can, and have as many of their civilians killed by Israelies, since it furthers their agendas.
There is nothing further to say to you then. You will not listen to any opinion that differs from your own even slightly
|
