• NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    October 7th was wrong

    Correction: Some individual actions taken on October 7th (with no evidence they were Hamas policy) were wrong. October 7th as a whole was resistance against a foreign occupier, which is allowed under international law.

    • djdadi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wow this is a very delusional take. Hamas didn’t rampage into the “Settlements” of land that has been taken, they went deep into Israel. And I don’t think international law allows you to kill or capture civilians or children and hold them for ransom.

      • no step on snek@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        They didn’t hold them for ransom. They demanded the release of Palestinian prisoners in Israel, which Israel is detaining in a way that conflicts with international law (unlawful detainment, torture, withllding food, already several prioners have died in Israeli prisons since October 7th, but the correct word is that they were murdered/assassinated by Israel.

      • NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        International law generally makes exceptions for actions that have military purpose. Israel created a status quo where one of the few things Hamas can do that actually make the lives of Palestinians better is take hostages, so from my understanding it’d be allowed by international law.

        • djdadi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Your understanding of international law is absolutely frightening. Go ask ChatGPT that question before you say it out loud again.

    • barbarosa@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Israel was not occupying Gaza, in fact it withdrew its settlements and all army forces in 2005. On October 7th, not a single Israeli soldier was in Gaza.

    • no step on snek@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Thanks. That’s a good explanation of it.

      But where does one draw the line between “Individual action” and “battalion action”?

      • NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        When the atrocity in question was ordered or encouraged by the leadership. The point the blame passes from the individual to the institution is when the institution gets involved in the atrocity. So if Hamas had said “kill civilians” or “rape women” we’d have to blame Hamas for that, but as long as it’s a decision an individual made on their own only the individual bears responsibility.

        • orrk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          so, if, for example, the head of government goes and awards medals to people shooting children you would assume that the government supports that, right?

      • dx1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        What’s the standard for this in the U.S.? It reaches only as far up the ladder as anyone can definitively prove. Abu Gharib saw like, what, a lieutenant fired or something. But when it’s “the enemy”, all of a sudden we assume by default the decision came from the highest levels, and it’s carte blanche to wipe out 2.5 million people living in a giant concentration camp, in a supposed attempt to do regime change.