This seems nuts in theory. Now just imagine that a year before 9/11 Bin Laden was found somewhere and the White House was ordering a strike. What level of collateral would you think acceptable? 100, 200, 500, 1000? When you consider how many died on 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan does that change your response?
I concur with picard102 on this issue. I have nothing further to add.
Right now, whether we agree or not, the Israelis perceive a substantial (near existential threat) and this has changed their definition of proportionality. We don't have to agree with it. But we need to understand their perception to be able to effectively mediate.
We've heard the existential threat line trot out before by Russia when it invaded Ukraine. Why do we rightfully say that's not a justification for what they've done, but blindly accept Israel's argument when they do the same exact thing? Since when have right and wrong become contingent on which side is doing the atrocities?
Always mistrust powerful nations that claim to be facing an existential threat. Any nation that was able to turn Mariupol into an apocalyptic wasteland in 3 months' time, or level Gaza to the ground in a comparable time frame, with little to no difficulty, is not one who needs to fear for their continued existence.
The best way for the Palestinians and their Hamas-led government in Gaza to have protected their women and children was not to have attacked Israel. Once you attack, murder, rape, mutilate and kidnap Israeli citizens, well you’ve kicked the beehive and will have to live with the overwhelming swarm that is the wholly-predictable consequence.
And how do you imagine that the average Palestinian civilian would have been able to stop the attack on Israel? Please outline to me, very carefully and in full detail, how they were supposed to go about this. This isn't a big budget Hollywood movie where any random Joe Schmoe can affect the outcome of a situation, let's leave the speculative fiction out of this.
This is just victim blaming, that is all. Using the abhorrent actions of a government to justify abhorrent actions against civilians is morally bankrupt.
You know what could have prevented this? If Israel
took the intelligence reports seriously. It's almost as though they were looking for a casus belli.
This is where I see criticism of Israel to be hypocritical. They’re just doing what Canada and the West has done in the name of our own national security. But somehow Israel is held to a higher standard?
The majority of the world is against what Israel has done, we are not so special here in the West.
And if we use past crimes as a justification, we might as well completely abandon any kind of notions of international law at all, since every country of the world, at some point in the past, has been guilty of doing something we would rightfully view as abhorrent.
www.brookings.edu
www.cfr.org
abcnews.go.com
