How do we know it was intentional? Although I guess the practical difference between intentional and callously indifferent is not very large in this context. So maybe it doesn’t matter.
“All three vehicles were carrying civilians; they were marked as WCK vehicles; and their movements were in full compliance with Israeli authorities, who were aware of their itinerary, route, and humanitarian mission,” WCK said in a statement Thursday.
I’m not sure how it can be accidental if you were told about it in advance.
And even if for a moment, that the person who aimed the guns didn’t know, it was someone’s job to make sure they did. Someone knew.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
Israel internationally bombed a clearly marked aid convoy after being informed of and approving their route.
Israel internationally adopted rules of engagement so lax that they allowed for 3 accidental bombings on a clearly marked aid convoy after being informed of and approving their route.
All of the above.
The problem for Israel is that all of those possibilities are war crimes.
Well, what they’re going to claim is that war is hard and this happens to everyone, so it’s not intentional at all. Unfortunately, for people predisposed to believe them, this argument can seem quite reasonable. So that’s why we need to rigorously challenge it using as many lines of evidence as possible.
Beyond the route being approved in advance and the vehicles being clearly marked, the vehicles were also 2 km apart from each other and each one was seperatelt targeted
We don’t, which is why I say “likely” - but the sheer precision and clear markings on the vehicles makes me doubt the “it was a series of accidents” explanation.
Maybe I interpreted the word intentionally differently than you meant to use it. My understanding of the IDF’s explanation was that they mistakenly thought the vehicles were Hamas. So by intentional I thought you mean they were knowingly killing aid workers.
I think everyone agrees the vehicles were deliberately targeted, but why this was done is open to speculation.
No, we’re of the same mindset. It’s clear the missiles didn’t fall on these vehicles by chance, it’s just up for some debate regarding on if they were deliberately targeted knowing they were aid vehicles or not
It’s because there are different definitions of intentional and accidental in this context such that they are not always mutually exclusive.
The strike was intentionally targeted on those vehicles, but IDF claims it was accidental in that they were mistaken about the occupants of the vehicles. Whether this is true is unclear at this time.
The strike was intentionally targeted on those vehicles, but IDF claims it was accidental in that they were mistaken about the occupants of the vehicles.
I don’t believe that bullshit for a microsecond. Either Israel is forehead caved in stupid, or they believe people like you are.
“All three vehicles were carrying civilians; they were marked as WCK vehicles; and their movements were in full compliance with Israeli authorities, who were aware of their itinerary, route, and humanitarian mission,” WCK said in a statement Thursday. Source
Israel is a terrorist state that murders aid workers knowingly and intentionally, and abused claims of antisemitism to act with impunity against aid workers and civilians. There is a long history of this kind of behavior, so Israel deserves exactly 0 benefit of the doubt.
Part of the reason this conflict is so intractable is the blind rage that makes people see things in only black and white.
Personally I don’t think it’s that simple. It’s not about the benefit of the doubt, it’s about the summation of what we know, what we don’t know, and filling in the gaps with reasonable assumptions about what is possible or likely. Even if what you believe is true, it is still worthwhile to prove it.
How do we know it was intentional? Although I guess the practical difference between intentional and callously indifferent is not very large in this context. So maybe it doesn’t matter.
They were specifically told the itinerary of the aid workers.
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/International/world-central-kitchen-jacob-flickinger-partner/story?id=108866378
I’m not sure how it can be accidental if you were told about it in advance.
And even if for a moment, that the person who aimed the guns didn’t know, it was someone’s job to make sure they did. Someone knew.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Which law?
Because US law requires intent, but I’m not sure ICC/ICJ have the same requirements.
From the ICC’s web page:
Note the repeated reference to deliberate or intentional actions. So proving intent is a big question in this case.
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.
What is the direct quote of them admitting it was intentional? I hadn’t seen that point brought up until now.
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.
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”.
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.
There are 3 possibilities:
Israel internationally bombed a clearly marked aid convoy after being informed of and approving their route.
Israel internationally adopted rules of engagement so lax that they allowed for 3 accidental bombings on a clearly marked aid convoy after being informed of and approving their route.
All of the above.
The problem for Israel is that all of those possibilities are war crimes.
Well, what they’re going to claim is that war is hard and this happens to everyone, so it’s not intentional at all. Unfortunately, for people predisposed to believe them, this argument can seem quite reasonable. So that’s why we need to rigorously challenge it using as many lines of evidence as possible.
Beyond the route being approved in advance and the vehicles being clearly marked, the vehicles were also 2 km apart from each other and each one was seperatelt targeted
We don’t, which is why I say “likely” - but the sheer precision and clear markings on the vehicles makes me doubt the “it was a series of accidents” explanation.
Maybe I interpreted the word intentionally differently than you meant to use it. My understanding of the IDF’s explanation was that they mistakenly thought the vehicles were Hamas. So by intentional I thought you mean they were knowingly killing aid workers.
I think everyone agrees the vehicles were deliberately targeted, but why this was done is open to speculation.
No, we’re of the same mindset. It’s clear the missiles didn’t fall on these vehicles by chance, it’s just up for some debate regarding on if they were deliberately targeted knowing they were aid vehicles or not
IDF literally admitted they were intentional strikes.
And yet, western news media still claims it was an “accident”
Dafuq?! I dunno.
It’s because there are different definitions of intentional and accidental in this context such that they are not always mutually exclusive.
The strike was intentionally targeted on those vehicles, but IDF claims it was accidental in that they were mistaken about the occupants of the vehicles. Whether this is true is unclear at this time.
I don’t believe that bullshit for a microsecond. Either Israel is forehead caved in stupid, or they believe people like you are.
Israel is a terrorist state that murders aid workers knowingly and intentionally, and abused claims of antisemitism to act with impunity against aid workers and civilians. There is a long history of this kind of behavior, so Israel deserves exactly 0 benefit of the doubt.
Part of the reason this conflict is so intractable is the blind rage that makes people see things in only black and white.
Personally I don’t think it’s that simple. It’s not about the benefit of the doubt, it’s about the summation of what we know, what we don’t know, and filling in the gaps with reasonable assumptions about what is possible or likely. Even if what you believe is true, it is still worthwhile to prove it.
I just war game it, disincentive aid, create famine, after everyone is starving the only people not starving are Hamas.