Comment by c0nducktr
Pretty bold to cry about war crimes while defending the actions of Israel.
Pretty bold to cry about war crimes while defending the actions of Israel.
> Pretty easy though, when Israel is clearly being held to a standard that their combatants aren't.
If you look at it binary then both sides committed atrocities, war crimes, and generally acts of terror. If you look at the magnitude though one stands out.
> the Islamic side has a part to play in what is happening
Attempts to defend either are weak, nether is defensible really. But defending the side that took it orders of magnitude further with explanations like well the other side "had a part" are absolutely gross and reminiscent of explanations for certain atrocities a certain European country committed 80 years ago because "they" knew what they did to deserve it right? "They" also had a part to play.
I agree with this sentiment, actually; it's not binary, there's no "both sides", we have to take each atrocity in the context in which it's presented and dispassionately dole out justice. Ideally based on an even field of understanding about what the rules are and without taking personal preferences into account.
But I think we disagree on a core tenet: that magnitude is a precursor to understanding who belligerents are.
If that was the case then during all history, the winning side would always have to be the bad guy, no matter who initiated hostilities or how warfare was conducted.
> Israel is clearly being held to a standard that their combatants aren't.
This statement doesn't make a lot of sense. Israel is an ally we supply with munitions and the other side is acknowledged to be a terrorist militia and therefore we support their destruction. Of course we expect Israel to adhere to a much higher standard than Hezbollah, right?
I think (hope) you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who believes Hezbollah members shouldn't be held accountable for violations of the law of armed conflict. It's just that nobody believes the problem of Hezbollah is going to be solved in a court or with diplomacy at this stage.
> the Islamic side
If you feel the need to worry about the religious angle you really ought to differentiate between Sunni and Shia when talking about Lebanon in particular, given the unique characteristics of their demography and politics. Although I don't know where you're going with that.
> I'm becoming more radicalised
Fantastic.
Pretty easy though, when Israel is clearly being held to a standard that their combatants aren't.
I'll tell you now: I'm becoming more radicalised the more I see the absolute state of discourse here; it's not only polarised: it's completely asymmetric.
It seems that it's not even possible for people to consider that the Islamic side has a part to play in what is happening, and to condemn both parties for the actions that they take, understanding that it's not equivalent in all areas.