▲ 213 ▼ Israeli strike hits Rafah area after Hamas barrage (www.bbc.co.uk) submitted 2 years ago by QuantumSpecter@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world 187 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 10 points 2 years ago (1 child) Proportionality is international law: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-51 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] scorpious@lemmy.world -7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Gotta love this thinking here. So tell me, should the US have stopped attacking Japan once they’d matched the ~2.4k soldiers killed at Pearl Harbor? Or should the allies have stopped “genociding” Nazi Germany once they’d matched Hitler’s body count? OF COURSE NOT. This isn’t about tit for tat. Especially when going after an enemy that is openly committee to your annihilation. Israel certainly appears to be doing a shit job of it, but there is no need to muddy the waters with specious arguments. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 5 points 2 years ago You're mixing up things. Proportionality is a specific thing about scale. It doesn't say you're not allowed to respond to failed attacks. You can for example evaluate the likely future harm your enemy would cause if you don't stop them and then apply the proportionality principle to that when you try to stop them. Or evaluate likely harm if somebody else attempted and succeeded with an attack you just stopped, and decide what kind of deterrence is needed based on that. And Israel isn't just doing a shit job of it. they're not doing it at all permalink fedilink source parent
[+] scorpious@lemmy.world -7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Gotta love this thinking here. So tell me, should the US have stopped attacking Japan once they’d matched the ~2.4k soldiers killed at Pearl Harbor? Or should the allies have stopped “genociding” Nazi Germany once they’d matched Hitler’s body count? OF COURSE NOT. This isn’t about tit for tat. Especially when going after an enemy that is openly committee to your annihilation. Israel certainly appears to be doing a shit job of it, but there is no need to muddy the waters with specious arguments. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 5 points 2 years ago You're mixing up things. Proportionality is a specific thing about scale. It doesn't say you're not allowed to respond to failed attacks. You can for example evaluate the likely future harm your enemy would cause if you don't stop them and then apply the proportionality principle to that when you try to stop them. Or evaluate likely harm if somebody else attempted and succeeded with an attack you just stopped, and decide what kind of deterrence is needed based on that. And Israel isn't just doing a shit job of it. they're not doing it at all permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 5 points 2 years ago You're mixing up things. Proportionality is a specific thing about scale. It doesn't say you're not allowed to respond to failed attacks. You can for example evaluate the likely future harm your enemy would cause if you don't stop them and then apply the proportionality principle to that when you try to stop them. Or evaluate likely harm if somebody else attempted and succeeded with an attack you just stopped, and decide what kind of deterrence is needed based on that. And Israel isn't just doing a shit job of it. they're not doing it at all permalink fedilink source parent