He's claiming that it is justified because israel might commit genocide at some unspecified time in the future, despite that being unlikely. It seems like a rediculous argument to me. Nobody has a crystal ball - you can't justify actions based on things that haven't happened yet. It seems more an attempt to deflect the criticism that hamas has comitted genocide.
Was 9/11 justified because america might commit genocide in the future? Sure it hasn't happened yet but still might because time hasn't ended?
This article is headlined and leads with an accusation about the recent hospital tragedy being due to an Israeli air strike. I believe that the preponderance of sources (neutral or otherwise) have attributed that explosion to a malfunctioning PIJ/Hamas rocket or missile .
The press release is kind of undermined by using as its premise that israel targeted Al Ahli Arab Hospital despite there being significant evidence that it was actually a Palestinian group that did that.
The article doesn't seem to be using an evidence based approach.
You fell for Qatari state and Hamas terrorist propaganda. All physical evidence points to a more minor event caused by a failed rocket within Gaza. Only the initial confusion caused the ridiculous claims of 500 dead and the entire hospital up in flames to spread. Do some light reading based on current understanding that isn’t Al Jazeera.
“Israel, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and Canada said that their intelligence sources indicate the cause of the explosion was a failed rocket launch by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) from within Gaza, while the PIJ has denied any involvement. Hamas said that Israel carried out an airstrike on the hospital. Most experts speaking in the days after the strike agreed with the Israel Defense Forces' analysis that a misfired Palestinian rocket launched at Israel from within Gaza and captured on video was the likely cause of the explosion.”
> Just for the record, there are also claims supported by evidence, that Israel did it.
I've seen no convincing evidence that shows that Israel did it, the creator and damage size is way too small for any Israeli bomb or missile even airburst does not match the features found at the explosion.
May be you're right. I'm no expert. And I'm certainly not Craig to tell you just what their thinking was/is.
> Nobody has a crystal ball - you can't justify actions based on things that haven't happened yet.
Speaking of experts, see this piece by an Isareli historian Raz Segal (who's also a controversial figure, because nothing about this conflict is without controversy): https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide
Even Gandhi allowed for armed conflict where there is no peaceful alternative, and Nelson Mandela was in a paramilitary group.
The difference between a pacifist and a hawk is the frequency of such appeals and the definition of its necessity.
I've always been a pacifist, but I struggle to condemn the actions of a populace that has now been subjected to brutal apartheid conditions for several generations.
Even the most hawkish person would probably say the same thing. "War is terrible except when i think one side is justified" is hardly a pacifist take.