Didn’t you say “ends up killing children inadvertently”? As I understood it, that was the reason you used the passive voice. The ambassador said they don’t have the intent…which has clearly been proven false. I’m not sure how that’s not what we’re talking about
The ambassador said that the initial reports are not accurate or misleading He gives examples inc where reports state Israel killed children with the implication that it was intentional but that it later seems like hamas are bringing kids into their military locations and are then killed.
The interviewer and OP suggest that the fact as described by Lew are irrelevant and that culpability is same even under scenario described.. Most on this thread seem to agree. I don't, the scenario that Lew describes accribes SIGNIFICANTLY less culpability and would NOT be a war crime for Israel
That is what I and thread was discussing. If you or others believe that the entire scenario Lew describes never happens, then that is a fine and fair opinion. But I was not discussing that. I was addressing the concept that Hamas bringing kids to fight doesn't change the moral component
But that rests on taking Lew to be a credible source. When the Biden admin spent a year and half denying what was happening and providing cover for Israel’s genocide (as well as the weapons to commit it)
Yeah and since the interviewer and OP didn't claim he was lying but rather that the scenario he presented doesn't change the moral calculation I reaponded. If the interviewer or OP, said, that is ridiculous, such scenarios never happen, then I wouldn't have posted bc I have no clue what Lew hears
…but the entire interview shows him to be not credible, which obviously isnt surprising. And there’s a huge body of evidence to show that Israel has been killing civilians intentionally, man woman or child.
I guess the part that was tripping me up is I’m realizing now you were taking Lew, and the Israeli and American governments, at their word…which is interesting to say the least
The interviewer and the OP and thread is pretty clear in implying that the facts as Lew described don't matter (not that they were false). You are entitled to believe Lew is lying and if that was post I wouldn't have said a word.