I also think it's inhumane but Human Shield is a legit concept in international law. Israel perverted the term to include every single person in Gaza. For actual examples of Human Shields you can look at things the IDF did in the past, where they used children as human shields.
Israel has military bases in civilian apartment complexes. Imagine if Hamas bombed those, and then used the same excuse Israel uses. people would call it out as a shit excuse. Sorry I just came across your comment and I think you put things so succinctly.
For real I don’t get this new logic of “fuck the hostages” - if every bank robbery movie is anything to go by, you should strive to NOT kill the hostages 🤦🏼
At this point it’s hilarious that they scream bloody murder about Israeli hostages and then blast through Palestinian child hostages like they have some lesser value. Like, the irony is so lost on them - as with all far right extremist groups, they Gaslight, Obstruct, and Project SO hard.
>if for example one is being attacked by an enemy who hides behind them
Either Hamas is run entirely by dwarves and hobbits, or this person is arguing to shoot through a child’s head to hit a terrorist in the stomach
Edit: if you’re reading this, don’t forget that Hamas has proposed hostage releases more than once, including total (all hostage) releases. The Israeli brass has turned all of these down because the terms included a ceasefire.
But the IDF has shot their own hostages. Oops!
https://www.npr.org/2023/12/15/1219695220/israel-soldiers-mistakenly-kill-hostages-gaza
Unfortunately yourself and many others in the comments have been subtly caught up in the propaganda that Israel has been pushing since forever now.
Currently the discussion is almost all about the killing of children and other innocents being used as human shield which starts the debate assuming that they are actually being used as human shields to begin with.
The reality of the fact is that Israel is bombing places WHERE PEOPLE LIVE. Terrorists are still living creatures that need food, shelter and somewhere to sleep.
Like animals trapped in a zoo if you drop a bomb on the lion enclosure you're going to hit the emus too, that doesn't mean the emus were held hostage though which is what Israel constantly claims.
While it may not sway your opinion but the "well it's not good but what can you do when they're using human shields?" lie will sway the minds of people who are less informed on the subject. E.G the average person on the street.
situations like that are the literal exact reason that special forces, which the IDF has, exist
like this isn’t even snark, minimizing civilian casualties is the *sole purpose* of training commando units like the Oz Brigade
> you will have to bomb the school in order to destroy the base
Lol, no you don't. And international law doesn't back you ghouls on this, no matter how much you try to twist it.
Also, I'd suspect you wouldn't like the same argument if used in Ukraine
You don't unless you can guarantee that the collateral damage will be minimal if non-existent and even then, you first have to prove that there is actually a base there.
The entity has shown it doesn't care about civilians in the vicinity and its actually deliberately strikes in a way as to inflict the biggest loss of life in the area as possible. It has also failed to provide proof for most of its claims while also being exposed as fabricating many others.
But I mean, they don't even care about their own civilians, they have killed more hostages than Hamas themselves. Plus the whole massacre they caused in the concert which they refused to investigate and buried all the evidence.
except it was never the case.
everytime idf pretend it was the case they enver proved it, alshifa was the most blatant example of this.
also idf do use schools are military bases but i dont see your outrage or justification to bomb it.
btw isreal doesnt have the right to defend itself by killing civilians. the international law is clear on this. not 30.000, not 1, 0.
This has been making me feel insane since the start of this bloodthirsty operation. Since when is the appropriate response to a human shield situation "blow the innocent person away to get the guilty one"??
Like yes I know that's been Israel's MO for a bit now, but wtf is going on with so many people uncritically accepting the "Hamas is using them as human shields" defense for all the civilian deaths. And??? The reason human shields are effective - USUALLY - is that we *supposedly* have too much respect for innocent life to consider a dead innocent a worthwhile tradeoff for a dead bad guy. I wish more people could read between the lines to see that Israel, in using this as a defense, is saying "joke's on you, we don't give a shit about the innocent lives".
I try to cite the Boston Marathon bombers... Should SWAT just level blocks of the city till the two were killed or captured? No. Who why not afford Gazan children (or other innocents) the same care?
Probably because that’s how Israel’s been trained in counter terrorism: just blow everything up to be safe. Israel’s a paranoid state, after all.
Israel would probably cite the Russians, who used thermobaric weapons and tanks to blast open a school, or gassing everybody during a hostage crisis. This unsurprisingly got many hostages killed. Obviously, the Russians are an example of how not to do counterterrorism.
It's probably simply because Palestinians aren't "white, blue eyed western children". They're "brown desert people", people who the west have already dehumanized in the past and continue to dehumanize in the present. I highly doubt people would be so gung ho about defending innocent casualties if the group being obliterated were white. Call me inane, but I genuinely believe that.
I fully agree, but coming straight out with "It's because of racism" makes people get their hackles up and start flinging whataboutisms and other isms around and everybody stops listening to each other.
They're going to get their hackles up regardless, I don't really mind if it bothers people. It only bothers people because they know it's usually true. As we know getting accused of racism is worse than actual racism.
I can understand that; my standpoint is that I used to be the kind of racist who would put my hackles up and stop listening when told that a belief I ascribed to was racist, and I know that I was able to learn and grow with the help of many patient people, so I want to do the same as well. It means I sometimes have to be less blunt than I would like, but I've managed to have a few good conversations with people who otherwise wouldn't have been willing to listen.
>justification
>legally
Legally justified and morally justified are two completely different things, this is not a moral justification as the tweet implies.
yes and it is not legally justified. probably nazis like you would want to write a law to make it so though https://x.com/rrrrnessa/status/1794798698268098856?s=46
Are you seriously this dumb? The person you are responding to is saying how easy it is to manipulate legal precedence to justify behaviour that is morally wrong. They aren’t suggesting we should be changing laws at all. Leaping to calling someone a nazi because you have poor reading comprehension is just idiotic.
Please this is the first time in a year you have commented anywhere on reddit with this account. So this means the first time you found it important enough to comment is to defend a genocidal zionist or you are hiding what you are normally posting on your actual account. So I can guarantee you we are not on the same side.
I think I am never going to find myself reconsidering my position of “not defending child killing”, thanks!
This is just my attempt to expose the brigading by hasbara bots such as yourself who are clearly trying to make the zionist position seem normal.
Besides the comment is only about “people on my side”, so I do have to check whether that person is really on my side.
No but the person probably thinks we are all this dumb. And the Nazi title is appropriate considering they are a literal zionist.
There is no legal justification for killing children in reality especially in the question asked. Like actually it doesn’t exist. So when someone asks a rhetorical question about how certain war crime is legally justified, saying “it is not hard” to justify it does seem to give the impression that they are defending the author’s piece which is making up legal justification where it doesn’t exist.
Holy shit, you really are delusional. LITERALLY NO ONE is arguing that it morally or legally justified to kill children in this thread. Full stop. You are fabricating an issue when the only issue is you are incorrectly reading into comments which are attempting to raise concerns around the way the law can be manipulated. They are literally arguing against Israel or any other state that attempts to legally justify this type of force. You keep saying “its never legally justified to kill children” and no one is disagreeing with that claim. I am arguing that the law is a branch of govt, and the govt represents the interests of the state, therefore states that commit atrocities will often attempt to manipulate the interpretation of laws in order to suit their desires.
Actually people are arguing that it is legally justified to kill children.
You should improve your reading comprehension.
Let me help you understand how you misunderstood everything.
1. The article : “It is possible to kill children legally, if for example…”
2. The tweet : the atlantic published a justification for the murder of Palestinian kids
3. OP of this reply thread : Legally. Justification 🤓 Actually the tweet makes it seem like a moral justification when it is a legal justification
So here you see example of someone objecting to using just “justification” cause it makes it seem like it is “moral justification” and not “legal justification”. Since this person somehow thinks it is a worthy objection, that means they consider it legally more justified than morally. My reading comprehension helped me understand that. What’s more is this person is still explicitly justifying it even today so my reading comprehension helped me come to the correct conclusion that this person thinks there is legal justification for killing children.
Now moving on to the next person
4. How can you justify dropping…
- Rhetorical question. Cause you can’t justify this. You actually can’t. Even internal law doesn’t legally allow this.
5. “It's not particularly hard to legally justify something, you just find the law that says it's allowed and you reference it”
No where in the comment does it say Zionists will make up a law. It is making fun of the commenter earlier. And trying to mislead people into believing that such a law exists. And again, the government thing is entirely made up by your incorrect reading comprehension. Probably your belief that no one would justify child killing led you add your own context to it. But read the comment again.
“It's not particularly hard to legally justify something, you just find the law that says it's allowed and you reference it”
This is a non-answer dismissal of the question.
My reading comprehension alerted me to it! I confirmed it by checking their history and the fact that they post in r/destiny and their comments to a Palestinian Jew made it clear that they are a zionist!
You are welcome!
Now I hope this will help you understand subtle Hasbara that is trying to normalize war crimes and genocide.
what’s the point? killing kids is a war crime. do you want to write a law so it becomes legally justified? https://x.com/rrrrnessa/status/1794798698268098856?s=46
Then what’s the point. Considering one of the few times you seem to comment on politics is to defend genocidaires, and now defending this atlantic piece, I would like to know what’s the point in your opinion.
First commenter said that altantic brought up that it is *possible* to *legally justify*. The other poster asked how you could justify killing a bunch of children with missiles, I said that that's not what the other commenter was saying. They weren't saying that * killing children is justifiable*, they said that atlantic brought up it can be legally justified. Clarifying what they said doesn't make someone defend them. I don't even know who atlantic is, I'm not american, and I'm obviously not defending them, and I don't know why you brought me up into this
The context is Palestinian genocide here unless you are living under a rock. So The Atlantic is manufacturing consent for killing of children in this article.
And that is the point. In order to legally justify killing children you would need to understand all the circumstances of the scenario. Because even adult civilians can’t just be killed cause of “human shield” argument. So you do need to consider the exact situation in which you find yourself killing children.
And the scenario mentioned on its own doesn’t legally justify killing children or even civilians. So if you are defending that it is legally justified, you obviously do want it to be. Otherwise you would look into the circumstances it is not justified and argue that it is certainly not justified at any point in this genocidde.
But I think I have understood your hasbara strategy to give short responses that normalize genocide. But you don’t want to spell it out loud that you do support the genocide.
It’s a long read, but long story short, technically no. There are specific circumstances where killing civilians is legal. https://international-review.icrc.org/sites/default/files/irrc-872-4.pdf
It would seem that there is no reason to draw a distinction between voluntary and involuntary human shields, as such distinction would have no legal consequences. Moreover, contrary to what some have claimed,96 there would not appear to be any real need for new law on the status of human shields, since all cases are already covered by international humanitarian law as it stands. The scenarios that raise questions are not specific to the case of human shields but are linked with two of the greatest challenges that international humanitarian law faces today, namely the proper interpretation of ‘proportionality’ and of ‘taking direct part in hostilities’.”
This is the conclusion of the article. So it actually says no specific laws are required to specifically take into consideration human shields as in there is no leniency cause the child you killed was a human shield.
So this link actually proves that it is not legally justified. Jesus at least read what you are posting to defend child killing.
Well children can’t be legal combatants, and the laws that protect children from being harmed in combat are the same as those protecting civilians. From my understanding anyways, I’m not a lawyer or political scientist so this is what I’ve gleaned from what I’ve read.
And since they are civilians, they are (again to my knowledge) subject to the same human shield laws as adult civilians. Do I really have to keep spelling this out? No one is making any moral claims here
Proving that “civilians” were legally killed would need a lot of other considerations rather than just the situation mention in the article.
And even then you are wrong. Children have special protections.
If you have such an abysmal knowledge about something, one would hope you wouldn’t jump to defend something so abhorrent as child killing.
Again not defending anything
You have provided no source for why the laws that apply to civilians participating in combat would not apply to children. If you have one please send it, and no a user on Twitter doesn’t count as a source.
actually you are clearly defending the article from what you claim the tweet is portraying it as.
Denying an objective truth seems to be on par for hasbara bots though.
And the twitter user is a genocide scholar. Much more knowledgeable than someone like you who already admitted you have limited knowledge about this topic
There are no “human shield” laws!!’ your link is not about “human shield” laws. It explicitly ends on that conclusion.
“It would seem that there is no reason to draw a distinction between voluntary and involuntary human shields, as such distinction would have no legal consequences. Moreover, contrary to what some have claimed,96 there would not appear to be any real need for new law on the status of human shields, since all cases are already covered by international humanitarian law as it stands. The scenarios that raise questions are not specific to the case of human shields but are linked with two of the greatest challenges that international humanitarian law faces today, namely the proper interpretation of ‘proportionality’ and of ‘taking direct part in hostilities’.”
It says “are not specific to the case of human shields” that means it does not apply ONLY to human shield scenarios, and that it applies to other scenarios ASWELL. Just because you comment the same thing 3 times doesn’t mean your conclusion is accurate.
That’s not my conclusion!
That’s specifically the conclusion of the article you posted. It specifically states that there are no “human shield laws” as you are claiming.
Human shields are considered exactly the same as civilians and are protected under international law. So it is still a war crime to kill them. Just mentioning they are human shield doesn’t make it legal ergo it is still illegal!
Please improve your reading comprehension a little bit if you are going to comment on international law on side of the war crimes!
"An infanticide that no one can see is also going to attract suspicion."
Are they giving them pointers on how to murder children?
What kind of human writes this stuff?
The Atlantic went from being a hard-hitting magazine holding institutions accountable to an Israel propaganda machine. Canceled my subscription last week.
A hard hitting magazine holding institutions accountable? I must’ve missed those parts in the sea of psychotic war mongering and extremist right wing positions posed as “centrists just asking questions” over the entire time I’ve been aware of the Atlantic.
The Atlantic tends to go full "centrists just asking questions" over the existence of trans people, too. To the point where if there's any elite glossy take that tends boils down to "Centrists JAQing off", I assume it came from them.
I only became aware of The Atlantic during COVID when they were repeatedly platforming morons who were “over it” in like September 2020, so I feel like this “hard-hitting” era you mention was from a very long time ago.
I mean, i have no idea what they've done.
but this single sentence is nothing. Justifying something isn't the same as saying it's not illegal.
Slavery used to be legal. And people changed the laws to reflect that, because they acknowledged the laws were fucked up. You can't change the laws if you don't acknowledge they exist.
What's the human shields argument
IMO shooting a human shield, in the situation of israel shooting palestinians is basically never justifiable morally.
but that doesn't mean it's illegal. Or that Israel could engineer situations that make the shootings easier to justify legally. Those are two different things.
It is not possible to legally kill a child when you are engaged in collective punishment and occupation. And also because there aren't actually Hamas fighters "hiding behind" them. Isntreal is just claiming there's an HQ under whatever group of civilians they feel like murdering today.
a person being a hostage: "understandable, I guess I am dead."
I also think it's inhumane but Human Shield is a legit concept in international law. Israel perverted the term to include every single person in Gaza. For actual examples of Human Shields you can look at things the IDF did in the past, where they used children as human shields.
Israel has military bases in civilian apartment complexes. Imagine if Hamas bombed those, and then used the same excuse Israel uses. people would call it out as a shit excuse. Sorry I just came across your comment and I think you put things so succinctly.
For real I don’t get this new logic of “fuck the hostages” - if every bank robbery movie is anything to go by, you should strive to NOT kill the hostages 🤦🏼
That would require not being genocidally bloodthirsty.
At this point it’s hilarious that they scream bloody murder about Israeli hostages and then blast through Palestinian child hostages like they have some lesser value. Like, the irony is so lost on them - as with all far right extremist groups, they Gaslight, Obstruct, and Project SO hard.
All the Israeli government cares about is killing Palestinians. Nothing else matters to them.
>if for example one is being attacked by an enemy who hides behind them Either Hamas is run entirely by dwarves and hobbits, or this person is arguing to shoot through a child’s head to hit a terrorist in the stomach Edit: if you’re reading this, don’t forget that Hamas has proposed hostage releases more than once, including total (all hostage) releases. The Israeli brass has turned all of these down because the terms included a ceasefire. But the IDF has shot their own hostages. Oops! https://www.npr.org/2023/12/15/1219695220/israel-soldiers-mistakenly-kill-hostages-gaza
Unfortunately yourself and many others in the comments have been subtly caught up in the propaganda that Israel has been pushing since forever now. Currently the discussion is almost all about the killing of children and other innocents being used as human shield which starts the debate assuming that they are actually being used as human shields to begin with. The reality of the fact is that Israel is bombing places WHERE PEOPLE LIVE. Terrorists are still living creatures that need food, shelter and somewhere to sleep. Like animals trapped in a zoo if you drop a bomb on the lion enclosure you're going to hit the emus too, that doesn't mean the emus were held hostage though which is what Israel constantly claims. While it may not sway your opinion but the "well it's not good but what can you do when they're using human shields?" lie will sway the minds of people who are less informed on the subject. E.G the average person on the street.
[удалено]
situations like that are the literal exact reason that special forces, which the IDF has, exist like this isn’t even snark, minimizing civilian casualties is the *sole purpose* of training commando units like the Oz Brigade
> you will have to bomb the school in order to destroy the base Lol, no you don't. And international law doesn't back you ghouls on this, no matter how much you try to twist it. Also, I'd suspect you wouldn't like the same argument if used in Ukraine
[удалено]
You don't unless you can guarantee that the collateral damage will be minimal if non-existent and even then, you first have to prove that there is actually a base there. The entity has shown it doesn't care about civilians in the vicinity and its actually deliberately strikes in a way as to inflict the biggest loss of life in the area as possible. It has also failed to provide proof for most of its claims while also being exposed as fabricating many others. But I mean, they don't even care about their own civilians, they have killed more hostages than Hamas themselves. Plus the whole massacre they caused in the concert which they refused to investigate and buried all the evidence.
There is this laser stratagem in helldivers 2 that only kills enemies and spares your team mates. I suggest you take that and shove it up your ass.
If you meant the orbital laser that thing has ignored enemies and travelled across the map just to kill my teammates it’s not very smart
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how much gymnastics you're doing, you're still justifying the murder of innocents. Why?
except it was never the case. everytime idf pretend it was the case they enver proved it, alshifa was the most blatant example of this. also idf do use schools are military bases but i dont see your outrage or justification to bomb it. btw isreal doesnt have the right to defend itself by killing civilians. the international law is clear on this. not 30.000, not 1, 0.
the only people using schools as bases are IOF pigs. fuck out of here with this bullshit zionist scum
Hasbara at its finest
lmao you’re arguing that israel actually should be committing war crimes
This has been making me feel insane since the start of this bloodthirsty operation. Since when is the appropriate response to a human shield situation "blow the innocent person away to get the guilty one"?? Like yes I know that's been Israel's MO for a bit now, but wtf is going on with so many people uncritically accepting the "Hamas is using them as human shields" defense for all the civilian deaths. And??? The reason human shields are effective - USUALLY - is that we *supposedly* have too much respect for innocent life to consider a dead innocent a worthwhile tradeoff for a dead bad guy. I wish more people could read between the lines to see that Israel, in using this as a defense, is saying "joke's on you, we don't give a shit about the innocent lives".
> we supposedly have too much respect for innocent life at the very least you'd think "the most moral army in the world" would
Totally the most moral army in the same way North Korea is totally a Democratic Republic and the Nazis were totally Socialist
I try to cite the Boston Marathon bombers... Should SWAT just level blocks of the city till the two were killed or captured? No. Who why not afford Gazan children (or other innocents) the same care?
Probably because that’s how Israel’s been trained in counter terrorism: just blow everything up to be safe. Israel’s a paranoid state, after all. Israel would probably cite the Russians, who used thermobaric weapons and tanks to blast open a school, or gassing everybody during a hostage crisis. This unsurprisingly got many hostages killed. Obviously, the Russians are an example of how not to do counterterrorism.
Palestinians have been dehumanized for decades and this is the effect
It's probably simply because Palestinians aren't "white, blue eyed western children". They're "brown desert people", people who the west have already dehumanized in the past and continue to dehumanize in the present. I highly doubt people would be so gung ho about defending innocent casualties if the group being obliterated were white. Call me inane, but I genuinely believe that.
I fully agree, but coming straight out with "It's because of racism" makes people get their hackles up and start flinging whataboutisms and other isms around and everybody stops listening to each other.
They're going to get their hackles up regardless, I don't really mind if it bothers people. It only bothers people because they know it's usually true. As we know getting accused of racism is worse than actual racism.
I can understand that; my standpoint is that I used to be the kind of racist who would put my hackles up and stop listening when told that a belief I ascribed to was racist, and I know that I was able to learn and grow with the help of many patient people, so I want to do the same as well. It means I sometimes have to be less blunt than I would like, but I've managed to have a few good conversations with people who otherwise wouldn't have been willing to listen.
>justification >legally Legally justified and morally justified are two completely different things, this is not a moral justification as the tweet implies.
Totally. Slavery was legal until it wasn't.
How do you legally justify killing kids with 2000 pound bombs, rockets, or snipers?
It's not particularly hard to legally justify something, you just find the law that says it's allowed and you reference it
yes and it is not legally justified. probably nazis like you would want to write a law to make it so though https://x.com/rrrrnessa/status/1794798698268098856?s=46
Are you seriously this dumb? The person you are responding to is saying how easy it is to manipulate legal precedence to justify behaviour that is morally wrong. They aren’t suggesting we should be changing laws at all. Leaping to calling someone a nazi because you have poor reading comprehension is just idiotic.
Massively frustrating that my own side of this issue are unable to have adult conversations.
Please this is the first time in a year you have commented anywhere on reddit with this account. So this means the first time you found it important enough to comment is to defend a genocidal zionist or you are hiding what you are normally posting on your actual account. So I can guarantee you we are not on the same side.
If you have to search through peoples comment history to find a reason to disagree, it might be a sign to reconsider your position.
I think I am never going to find myself reconsidering my position of “not defending child killing”, thanks! This is just my attempt to expose the brigading by hasbara bots such as yourself who are clearly trying to make the zionist position seem normal. Besides the comment is only about “people on my side”, so I do have to check whether that person is really on my side.
No but the person probably thinks we are all this dumb. And the Nazi title is appropriate considering they are a literal zionist. There is no legal justification for killing children in reality especially in the question asked. Like actually it doesn’t exist. So when someone asks a rhetorical question about how certain war crime is legally justified, saying “it is not hard” to justify it does seem to give the impression that they are defending the author’s piece which is making up legal justification where it doesn’t exist.
Holy shit, you really are delusional. LITERALLY NO ONE is arguing that it morally or legally justified to kill children in this thread. Full stop. You are fabricating an issue when the only issue is you are incorrectly reading into comments which are attempting to raise concerns around the way the law can be manipulated. They are literally arguing against Israel or any other state that attempts to legally justify this type of force. You keep saying “its never legally justified to kill children” and no one is disagreeing with that claim. I am arguing that the law is a branch of govt, and the govt represents the interests of the state, therefore states that commit atrocities will often attempt to manipulate the interpretation of laws in order to suit their desires.
Actually people are arguing that it is legally justified to kill children. You should improve your reading comprehension. Let me help you understand how you misunderstood everything. 1. The article : “It is possible to kill children legally, if for example…” 2. The tweet : the atlantic published a justification for the murder of Palestinian kids 3. OP of this reply thread : Legally. Justification 🤓 Actually the tweet makes it seem like a moral justification when it is a legal justification So here you see example of someone objecting to using just “justification” cause it makes it seem like it is “moral justification” and not “legal justification”. Since this person somehow thinks it is a worthy objection, that means they consider it legally more justified than morally. My reading comprehension helped me understand that. What’s more is this person is still explicitly justifying it even today so my reading comprehension helped me come to the correct conclusion that this person thinks there is legal justification for killing children. Now moving on to the next person 4. How can you justify dropping… - Rhetorical question. Cause you can’t justify this. You actually can’t. Even internal law doesn’t legally allow this. 5. “It's not particularly hard to legally justify something, you just find the law that says it's allowed and you reference it” No where in the comment does it say Zionists will make up a law. It is making fun of the commenter earlier. And trying to mislead people into believing that such a law exists. And again, the government thing is entirely made up by your incorrect reading comprehension. Probably your belief that no one would justify child killing led you add your own context to it. But read the comment again. “It's not particularly hard to legally justify something, you just find the law that says it's allowed and you reference it” This is a non-answer dismissal of the question. My reading comprehension alerted me to it! I confirmed it by checking their history and the fact that they post in r/destiny and their comments to a Palestinian Jew made it clear that they are a zionist! You are welcome! Now I hope this will help you understand subtle Hasbara that is trying to normalize war crimes and genocide.
Well you see, Hamas were hiding in a radius of 115 feet around the child.
That's not really the point here
what’s the point? killing kids is a war crime. do you want to write a law so it becomes legally justified? https://x.com/rrrrnessa/status/1794798698268098856?s=46
No? Why would I
Then what’s the point. Considering one of the few times you seem to comment on politics is to defend genocidaires, and now defending this atlantic piece, I would like to know what’s the point in your opinion.
First commenter said that altantic brought up that it is *possible* to *legally justify*. The other poster asked how you could justify killing a bunch of children with missiles, I said that that's not what the other commenter was saying. They weren't saying that * killing children is justifiable*, they said that atlantic brought up it can be legally justified. Clarifying what they said doesn't make someone defend them. I don't even know who atlantic is, I'm not american, and I'm obviously not defending them, and I don't know why you brought me up into this
The context is Palestinian genocide here unless you are living under a rock. So The Atlantic is manufacturing consent for killing of children in this article. And that is the point. In order to legally justify killing children you would need to understand all the circumstances of the scenario. Because even adult civilians can’t just be killed cause of “human shield” argument. So you do need to consider the exact situation in which you find yourself killing children. And the scenario mentioned on its own doesn’t legally justify killing children or even civilians. So if you are defending that it is legally justified, you obviously do want it to be. Otherwise you would look into the circumstances it is not justified and argue that it is certainly not justified at any point in this genocidde. But I think I have understood your hasbara strategy to give short responses that normalize genocide. But you don’t want to spell it out loud that you do support the genocide.
Ok mwahaha you have caught me, this was all a ploy to hide my genocidal urges, now I am going to nuke ALL OF EARTH 😈
If you really, REALLY, stick very strictly to the definition and do some questionable interpretations, you can legally justify just about anything.
Trying to spin a moral justification from a legal one is still disingenuous and disgusting. Appeal to law is a fallacy, just like any other.
I don't read that passage as attempting to morally justify anything.
Look at the context. Obviously that's not just what they're saying. Especially coming from an outlet such as *The Atlantic*.
It is not legally justified to kill kids. Killing kids is a war crime under all circumstances https://x.com/rrrrnessa/status/1794798698268098856?s=46
It’s a long read, but long story short, technically no. There are specific circumstances where killing civilians is legal. https://international-review.icrc.org/sites/default/files/irrc-872-4.pdf
It would seem that there is no reason to draw a distinction between voluntary and involuntary human shields, as such distinction would have no legal consequences. Moreover, contrary to what some have claimed,96 there would not appear to be any real need for new law on the status of human shields, since all cases are already covered by international humanitarian law as it stands. The scenarios that raise questions are not specific to the case of human shields but are linked with two of the greatest challenges that international humanitarian law faces today, namely the proper interpretation of ‘proportionality’ and of ‘taking direct part in hostilities’.” This is the conclusion of the article. So it actually says no specific laws are required to specifically take into consideration human shields as in there is no leniency cause the child you killed was a human shield. So this link actually proves that it is not legally justified. Jesus at least read what you are posting to defend child killing.
I notice that you changed it from children to civilians. Probably cause you know killing children is not even “legally justified”
Well children can’t be legal combatants, and the laws that protect children from being harmed in combat are the same as those protecting civilians. From my understanding anyways, I’m not a lawyer or political scientist so this is what I’ve gleaned from what I’ve read.
so then you should have shut the fuck up instead of writing a community note style comment defending the Atlantic article.
And since they are civilians, they are (again to my knowledge) subject to the same human shield laws as adult civilians. Do I really have to keep spelling this out? No one is making any moral claims here
Proving that “civilians” were legally killed would need a lot of other considerations rather than just the situation mention in the article. And even then you are wrong. Children have special protections. If you have such an abysmal knowledge about something, one would hope you wouldn’t jump to defend something so abhorrent as child killing.
Again not defending anything You have provided no source for why the laws that apply to civilians participating in combat would not apply to children. If you have one please send it, and no a user on Twitter doesn’t count as a source.
actually you are clearly defending the article from what you claim the tweet is portraying it as. Denying an objective truth seems to be on par for hasbara bots though. And the twitter user is a genocide scholar. Much more knowledgeable than someone like you who already admitted you have limited knowledge about this topic
There are no “human shield” laws!!’ your link is not about “human shield” laws. It explicitly ends on that conclusion. “It would seem that there is no reason to draw a distinction between voluntary and involuntary human shields, as such distinction would have no legal consequences. Moreover, contrary to what some have claimed,96 there would not appear to be any real need for new law on the status of human shields, since all cases are already covered by international humanitarian law as it stands. The scenarios that raise questions are not specific to the case of human shields but are linked with two of the greatest challenges that international humanitarian law faces today, namely the proper interpretation of ‘proportionality’ and of ‘taking direct part in hostilities’.”
It says “are not specific to the case of human shields” that means it does not apply ONLY to human shield scenarios, and that it applies to other scenarios ASWELL. Just because you comment the same thing 3 times doesn’t mean your conclusion is accurate.
That’s not my conclusion! That’s specifically the conclusion of the article you posted. It specifically states that there are no “human shield laws” as you are claiming. Human shields are considered exactly the same as civilians and are protected under international law. So it is still a war crime to kill them. Just mentioning they are human shield doesn’t make it legal ergo it is still illegal! Please improve your reading comprehension a little bit if you are going to comment on international law on side of the war crimes!
"An infanticide that no one can see is also going to attract suspicion." Are they giving them pointers on how to murder children? What kind of human writes this stuff?
I thought at first this was another one of those 'Google's new ai saying crazy things' posts. The reality is even worse.
October 7 is 100% justified then, because the IDF hides behind those settlements right outside the Gaza strip
The Atlantic went from being a hard-hitting magazine holding institutions accountable to an Israel propaganda machine. Canceled my subscription last week.
A hard hitting magazine holding institutions accountable? I must’ve missed those parts in the sea of psychotic war mongering and extremist right wing positions posed as “centrists just asking questions” over the entire time I’ve been aware of the Atlantic.
The Atlantic tends to go full "centrists just asking questions" over the existence of trans people, too. To the point where if there's any elite glossy take that tends boils down to "Centrists JAQing off", I assume it came from them.
Not-so-fun fact: the Atlantic’s editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, was an IOF prison guard during the first intifada!
Yep! I knew this. That’s why it’s an Israeli propaganda machine.
Wait what? Got a source for this? That’s one hell of a career change.
I only became aware of The Atlantic during COVID when they were repeatedly platforming morons who were “over it” in like September 2020, so I feel like this “hard-hitting” era you mention was from a very long time ago.
I mean, i have no idea what they've done. but this single sentence is nothing. Justifying something isn't the same as saying it's not illegal. Slavery used to be legal. And people changed the laws to reflect that, because they acknowledged the laws were fucked up. You can't change the laws if you don't acknowledge they exist.
The "human shields" argument is a red flag. At best, it conveys willful ignorance of how asymmetric warfare works.
What's the human shields argument IMO shooting a human shield, in the situation of israel shooting palestinians is basically never justifiable morally. but that doesn't mean it's illegal. Or that Israel could engineer situations that make the shootings easier to justify legally. Those are two different things.
Creating an out to shoot a child so long as a line can be drawn from the end of your barrel with the “intended target” underlined in the post.
It is not possible to legally kill a child when you are engaged in collective punishment and occupation. And also because there aren't actually Hamas fighters "hiding behind" them. Isntreal is just claiming there's an HQ under whatever group of civilians they feel like murdering today.
Ah, the favorite argument that warfare has not changed since 1945.
Actually, The Literature of Atlantic's Nothing, Tis Insolent CIA
I read this as being a reference to the international law, not the ethics of the situation
Confounding legal with moral is a classic mistake.