662
submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] -3 points 2 months ago

I think wanting to avoid innocent civilian deaths is a moral line that is valid for both sides.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

While I agree with that, it doesn't feel like your question to the other commenter carries quite the weight in this specific context as it might in others given that neither side has been clean about this, and it's not the Palestinian side that has intentionally blown up a playground within the past week.

I do generally think it's hard to equate the two fairly in this context, given the power differential between the two forces and their relative capabilities to be discerning if they so chose.

[-] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago

I apologize if I misunderstood you, but there is no both sides here. The united nations recognizes the right to armed struggle against occupation.

UNGA Resolution 37/43 (1982) reaffirmed the “inalienable right” of the Palestinian people “and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination” to self-determination. It also reaffirmed the legitimacy of “the struggle of peoples for […] liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle.”

https://www.cjpme.org/fs_236/

It even mentions the Palestinian struggle explicitly.

this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2024
662 points (98.5% liked)

World News

31441 readers
978 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS