this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2023
70 points (93.8% liked)
World News
32322 readers
713 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is a take I don't understand, and I'm only commenting because I've seen your comments around, quite enjoyed some of them, and I think you're not stupid, so I'm going to ask: Why should those with less power be beholden to the same moral standard as those with more power? In armed conflict, shouldn't the side with less power be held at most to the same standard as the side with more power? One side has few options and the other side has lots of options.
It's like if you get mugged by a pro boxer (bear with me on this analogy), should you only punch him, and only above the waist, in order to defend yourself? Or can you poke his eyes and kick him in the nuts, or even draw a weapon? My opinion is that you have the right to do whatever you have to do to get out alive. Houthis have far less money and power than Israel, so why should the same moral yard stick be applied to them as to Israel, when their options are far more limited?
We must condemn all war crimes. That shouldn't be a controversial statement.
Its one thing for a guerilla army to have shitty homemade rockets that misfire and accidentally kill civilians. Its another thing to intentionally block shipments of food and medicines. Or intentionally target a hospital.
Thanks for your response.
So is the short answer "yes" about holding both sides of a conflict to the same moral standard, regardless of each side's power and viable options?
Less accurate analogy, but you get the idea: if you kill your pro boxer mugger, it's self defence, but you'll have committed murder. War crimes kind of define the minimum "moral standard" that can't be crossed, even if you're trying to define some sort of moral standard weighed by power. Seems a bit delusional to try and quantify stuff like this to me though.
We must be talking about two different things because imo it's way better to live and have your day in court than to die of injuries or best case get all your stuff stolen and then have zero recourse.
Hm yes sorry simplistic analogies like this are always hard to reason about. In real life, the verdict would depend on the laws of your country, if self defence was proportionate, etc. Also, if you focus only on your personal gain, it makes sense to kill your mugger.
However, that's not what I had in mind when writing it: I hope that I'm not the only thinking that killing someone who wants to mug you, even by force, is bloody absurd and should be avoided at all costs ? Both because one might not feel good about what they did, even if it was to avoid injury or losing money, and because this mechanic feels very unsustainable, to say the least, on the scale of a society.
Idk if this analogy makes more sense now; of course if you don't share my opinion on this it becomes a pretty bad analogy. Maybe a better one would be wondering why most countries have abolished the death penalty (punishment is proportionate to crime, except when we decide there's a baseline that we won't cross for punishing some crimes that go below said baseline). Similarly, and as other commentators have said, war crimes have been agreed to be the baseline you must strictly respect, regardless of any other circumstances, including uneven conflict.
You're right, the analogy got a bit out of hand. Murder was never mentioned in the original analogy, it was poking eyes, kicking nuts, and drawing a weapon.
I guess in the end we do disagree, because I still hold that it's logical for the belligerent with less power to use any means necessary to avoid annihilation. Seems like everybody here agrees (fortunately) that when the fighting stops, all belligerents should face a tribunal at the ICJ, but the conversation started with actions taking place during the fighting.
Palestine is a good example: they have no military so should they say to their oppressors, "welp we can't legally fight you so I guess you can ethnically cleanse us and take our land"? On the flip side, it's unconscionable for Israel to commit war crimes against Palestine when the power imbalance is so extreme. Not only is Israel extremely well funded but they also have a military industry worth billions, as well as an advanced high tech sector and surveillance equipment installed all over the occupied territories. First and foremost, Israel was legally bound to use police force in occupied Palestine. Military force in an occupied territory is illegal, so those Palestinians who commited the Oct 7th attacks should have been arrested as the result of police work, and faced a trial. But we all know this is a genocide and land grab (since 1967), and it seems absurd to expect the victims of that to adhere to international law, especially when the oppressors don't. "Let's not stoop to their level" literally means "let's die".
Anyway, I do appreciate this civilized conversation with someone that has an opinion different than mine. Lemmy is a great place.
Yes, both sides should be sent to the ICC for justice and given a sentence that is proportionate to the amount and severity of the crimes they committed.
We agree on that, but that wasn't the issue we were talking about.