• CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    The two quotes I found most striking, after reading this article:

    Israel has used IHL [international humanitarian law] terminology to justify its systematic use of lethal violence against Palestinian civilians as a group and the extensive destruction of life-sustaining infrastructures. Israel has done this by deploying IHL concepts such as human shields, collateral damage, safe zones, evacuations and medical protection in such a permissive manner so as to gut these concepts of their normative content, subverting their protective purpose and ultimately eroding the distinction between civilians and combatants in Israeli actions in Gaza.

    In other words, Israel appears to represent itself as conducting a ‘proportionate genocide’

    • caveman@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      For me, what striked the most was.

      ““The erasure of civilian protections in the evacuated area was combined with indiscriminate targeting of evacuees and inhabitants of the areas designated as safe zones… Of the roughly 500 2,000-pound bombs dropped by Israel in the first six weeks of hostilities, 42 percent were deployed in the designated safe zones in southern areas.””

      42 pct is a hell lot!!

      I know someone who went to a “safe area” and on the night Israel sent a Rocket near her and killed 42 people.

      Lucky she was not among the dead

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yeah, that shocked me as well. They framed it as “well, it’s mostly a safe zone, but sometimes we’re forced to…”. Nope, it just wasn’t a safe zone, it may actually have been less safe, given that IIRC safe zones are a minority of the strip.