• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    -9
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Someone did but it could still be claimed to be “accidental” if that information didn’t make it to the person performing the attack. I’m not saying that’s what happened but it’s plausible. Though I will say at minimum I doubt they would have done this if they knew how well connected these aid workers were. It would have been politically very foolish.

    I think their overall strategy makes it clear that they don’t much care to avoid killing civilians and aid workers that are not well connected. But it’s hard to prove it’s done intentionally.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      179 months ago

      It’s very hard to prove their intent.

      It’s very easy to prove their negligence.

      We don’t know that they targeted aid workers. We can certainly say that they killed them without identifying them as valid military targets, because they weren’t.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        14
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        We can also certainly say that they are not sorry about it. Because the government’s spokesperson refused to apologize for it.

        In my book that’s enough not to require certainty about the original intent.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -49 months ago

        I completely agree but legally speaking the intentionality does matter in terms of the genocide case, etc. So that’s why I am curious what evidence we have. But intent is almost always the hardest piece of a crime to prove.

        • @WhoLooksHere
          link
          29 months ago

          legally speaking

          Which law?

          Because US law requires intent, but I’m not sure ICC/ICJ have the same requirements.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            1
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            From the ICC’s web page:

            First, the crime of genocide is characterised by the specific intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group by killing its members or by other means: causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; or forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

            Note the repeated reference to deliberate or intentional actions. So proving intent is a big question in this case.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      89 months ago

      They weren’t “well connected”, it was just brazen slaughter of western nationals.

      The WCF logo was clearly printed on top of the vans, the routes were already known and cleared by the IDF. Israel intentionally killed them claiming one of the occupants of the 3 vans looked like Hamas. They’re on an insane genocidal killing spree in Gaza, and it isn’t helpful that western media provides cover by calling it an “accident.” It was intentional, and IDF has already admitted this.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        19 months ago

        What is the direct quote of them admitting it was intentional? I hadn’t seen that point brought up until now.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -29 months ago

        Well there have been many killings of Palestinian aid workers, but those did not break through to the mainstream conversation the way this one did. That is what I mean by well-connected. In other words, people with a prominent voice in the west cared that these people died. This is not generally the case for ordinary Palestinians, so similar incidents that have already taken place were shrugged off.

    • @thesporkeffect
      link
      -19 months ago

      Why are you trying this hard to pretend there is more than one side to this situation? People have given you the facts and you keep snapping back to this CNN passive-voice “we can’t know for sure”.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        0
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Because that’s the default response to truth claims that are unproven? I don’t think this hyper-emotional speculation is very helpful personally.

        I don’t really care about your emotions or frankly any emotions other than the people directly affected. I’m trying to sort out what is true and false and what can be definitively proven from the available evidence. But there is a ton of misinformation flying around, so I want to be careful about what narratives I endorse, since many false narratives are being used to justify violence and hatred right now.