• oce 🐆@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      8 months ago

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

      • octopus_ink
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        8 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.

        • o_d [he/him]@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          8 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.