Ask Lemmy

A core principle of modern (western) legal states is that it's preferable to let 10 guilty people walk free before wrongfully punishing one innocent. I'm aware that we often don't manage to live up to that, but it is the ideal.

That's why guilt of the individual (!) has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, it's why certain evidence may become inadmissible if it's been acquired illegally, it's why suspect's may walk free due to formal errors. We try to make absolutely sure that cutting corners doesn't lead to wrong conclusions, even if it means that we sometimes have to let criminals go unpunished.

Following that same principle, "it's possible that there's a significant majority" isn't enough. Where's the proof that there's not a single inhabitant of Gaza who doesn't support Hamas?

Also, since when is it a crime punishable by lifelong imprisonment or death to be hateful of someone?

And if you and your entire people were held in an open air prison for as long as you could think back, would you not grow hateful of your jailers?

Last but not least: The logic that "there are no innocents [on the other side of the fence]" applied by Hamas towards the Israelis led to October 7th. If it was flawed then, how is it not flawed now?

Insofar that you add "innocent of absolutely anything and everything that anyone could ever morally doubt, on a philosophical lebel", definitely no.

Innocent as in not responsible for the crimes of others? Yeah, obviously. Depends though but vastly yes.

That is usually how a genocide is justified to the public. Every member of the 'undesireabe' group is guilty of being an undesirable, and can thus be justifyably murdered.

Examples:

All Jewish people are guilty of some conspiracy and/or killing Jesus

All Muslim people are guilty of replacing white christians and/or terrorism

All LGBTQ people are guilty of grooming kids

All Palestinians are guilty of 'occupying' Israeli land.

etc.

Every example of this is a tool of propaganda to get the public to go along with unfair treatment up to and including genocide. The fact that they're all easily refuted doesn't matter. It goes hand in hand with the view that the group aren't fully people.

This reasoning is never ok, no matter what group of people it's used against this time. When you recognize it, call it out for the sham it is.

Hard no.

The idea that your can judge an entire group of people to be innocent or not is heavily flawed. Even if any groups cultural influence was hypothetically incredibly evil, do people deserve death for being influenced by their surroundings? How do we gauge who has true evil in their heart, and who was harbouring doubts but couldn't say anything? We literally can't, and that kind of thinking shouldn't be used to decide judgement of a person, let alone who lives and who dies. In practical terms things get muddier sure, but we're way past that point.

At this point I feel like the conclusion of violence is made first, then the justification coming afterwards.

Those who say there are innocent seem to lack empathy.

What is a child guilty of in the conflict? There are always non combatants who are stuck in this wanting no part on either side.

Isn't that just neutrality?

Edit: Oh you meant "no innocents in enemy territory". No, that's not valid.

Those people who say that are just trying to justify their own hatred/bigotry/war crimes.

Palestinians have every right and plenty of reasons to hate Israelis as far as I am concerned

A friend of mine said something reaaaaaalllllly controversial. IDF claims everyone in GAZA is a terrorist. But look at Israel, everyone has mandatory military service. Everyone has either been in IDF, is currently in IDF, or will be in IDF.

If anything the opposite of "everyone in GAZA is a terrorist" holds more ground honestly.

Ask those people if there are any innocents in Israel. All of that society contributed to a genocide. We could ask the same thingabout the US. I didn't get thrown in jail from repeated protesting, so I'm just as much to blame.

Children are not born with hatred in their heart.

And as others have pointed out, hatred =/= not innocent. Nobody deserves to die just for hating someone. Even if you could justify killing someone just cause they allegedly hate you, I have a very very difficult time believing that all Palestinians hate Israelis and vice versa. Again, people are not born with hatred in their heart and the actions of a government don't always reflect the feelings of their citizens.

Also just being pedantic about your disclaimer: opinions are biased. You can't ask for an unbiased opinion. You can make an unbiased (to an extent) statement, but not an opinion.

I don't think this is a properly formed question because there's a difference between "not hateful" and "innocent". "Innocent" also needs further qualification - innocent of what?

Also, there are no "unbiased opinion" on anything, that's just not possible.

And if you don't, how would you refute it? There is no data that shows that there isn't a significant majority that's hateful towards the Israelis.

First, you can't just say "there is no data that shows that there isn't X"; you need data that shows X. However, you'll probably find that data fairly easily, because Palestinians hate Israelis' guts. That gets us to the real problem with this argument: Having an opinion doesn't make one guilty of anything. Only acts can make one guilty, acts like—for example—voting for Likud and other Israeli pro-war parties knowing they're running on a campaign of Palestinian extermination. It's just more projection from fascists (and make no mistake Zionism is a fascist ideology. For reference see: https://zionism.wtf/.)

No, if you believe that you're a genocidal maniac.

I don't care if someone says that there are no innocent Israelis or no innocent Gazans. It's despicable either way, and if it's coming from a person of faith - Jewish, Muslim, or Christian, then they are directly violating the will of God. (Gen 18:17 ff)

If they are a Kahanist or Hamas supporter, then they are in favor of literal terrorism.

It's probably true for some definition of innocent except for small children and babies. The problem is that people making this argument don't do so honestly otherwise they'd have to apply it to themselves and their own group as well. If nobody is innocent, it doesn't make sense to use it as a discriminator.

I would argue that any group of non-self-selected humans will have a handful of members who are inherently good or bad, but as a whole they will be no better or worse than any other group raised in similar circumstances and sharing similar experiences. So any blanket condemnation of an entire group is really a condemnation of the circumstances they’ve been subjected to.

To me it seems those Israelis are projecting... in other words: They're claiming there are no innocent Israelis. An accusation is usually a confession in this time and age I've noticed.

It's pretty easy to be blinded by hatred and anger and wanting to excuse your own actions. I think we've all been there in life. Whoever is saying "there are no innocents" in Palestine is clearly at that stage.

It is a pointless view that solves nothing. Flip it around, say "all (on both sides) are not guilty" and you might have a starting point.

it is a valid view.

but i do not support it.

imo, anything that uses absolutes tends to get out of reasonable bounds. no innocents in Gaza is really hard to prove.

Obviously they will be hateful. This should not be enough to consider them guilty however.