- Joined
- Jul 18, 2020
The difference is one between those being a side effect of the hostilities, vs them being intentional. Like how it is acceptable to kill some civilians while striking a military target, but it is not acceptable to target civilians directly.like, show me a single land war that did not involve death, starvation, great suffering, and serious injury to the civilian population? you can't, because it's impossible.
It is to some degree unavoidable that the civilian population suffers when combat takes place around them, but it is the responsibility of the armies to minimize the harm.
Israel not only did little to alleviate it (even aid provided by third parties FOR FREE was interfered with, to the level of deliberately killing foreign aid workers repeatedly), but also aggravated it through widespread destruction of infrastructure.
That's why I think it would be difficult to argue that the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is not the result of deliberate Israeli government policy.
So the court disagrees with the posters of this thread about the morality and legality of it, but is there a disagreement about the facts?
Last edited: