War crimes are war crimes, but consider this: war crimes are worse if the warring party has the ability to mitigate them, and war crimes are worse if they are for an inherently unjust cause. Applied to this situation, killing civilians is a war crime, but it’s one thing if your best weapon is an unguided rocket, and way worse if you have the ability to make precise strikes against your enemy but choose to blow up an entire apartment building instead to intentionally commit collective punishment. And it’s even worse when you do so because your real goal is to kill all the civilians rather than the one scapegoat you used to try to justify killing them all.
i would argue neither is worse - but the intent would be much harder to defend against in court when you are also bragging about being able to put a round through a specific window.
It also runs the very real risk of a little war crime being accepted if… for example you’re just “protecting your home” or “the other side is worse” or “you don’t have a choice”.
War crimes, like other crimes, must be considered in context. It’s ok to shoot someone in self defense charging you with a knife. It’s not ok to blow up an entire apartment building because you want the people living there dead so you can steal their land.
Shooting in self defense isn’t a war crime when applied to a country (article 51 of UN charter), and your second one is because its a direct attack on civilians… and if you’re claiming there is one fighter inside its non proportional attack.
Interesting point, article 51 is what was used to justify the US attack the second gulf War, and will likely be use to justify the Israeli response in this one.
War crimes are war crimes, but consider this: war crimes are worse if the warring party has the ability to mitigate them, and war crimes are worse if they are for an inherently unjust cause. Applied to this situation, killing civilians is a war crime, but it’s one thing if your best weapon is an unguided rocket, and way worse if you have the ability to make precise strikes against your enemy but choose to blow up an entire apartment building instead to intentionally commit collective punishment. And it’s even worse when you do so because your real goal is to kill all the civilians rather than the one scapegoat you used to try to justify killing them all.
i would argue neither is worse - but the intent would be much harder to defend against in court when you are also bragging about being able to put a round through a specific window.
It also runs the very real risk of a little war crime being accepted if… for example you’re just “protecting your home” or “the other side is worse” or “you don’t have a choice”.
War crimes, like other crimes, must be considered in context. It’s ok to shoot someone in self defense charging you with a knife. It’s not ok to blow up an entire apartment building because you want the people living there dead so you can steal their land.
In the case of war crime, no they don’t.
Shooting in self defense isn’t a war crime when applied to a country (article 51 of UN charter), and your second one is because its a direct attack on civilians… and if you’re claiming there is one fighter inside its non proportional attack.
Interesting point, article 51 is what was used to justify the US attack the second gulf War, and will likely be use to justify the Israeli response in this one.