only when there is an imminent danger will they engage.
Are there different definitions of “imminent danger” or something
IDF justification:
As the youths were wandering through the rubble of the devastated areas in Gaza, they were essentially trespassing in what can be classified as hostile territory. These areas have been known to harbor terrorist activities and weapons caches. Given the high-risk nature of these environments, the IDF was merely enforcing standard operating procedures to protect both their forces and innocent civilians.
Moreover, these particular individuals had no visible means of identification, which left the IDF with little choice but to assume that they might pose a threat. Their lack of uniform and identifiable markers could potentially mean they are involved with terrorist organizations. This suspicion, coupled with their presence in an area known for previous hostile activities, made the situation highly volatile. It’s important to remember that the IDF operates under the principle of necessity and proportionality, meaning that only when there is an imminent danger will they engage.
only when there is an imminent danger will they engage.
Are there different definitions of “imminent danger” or something
Palestinians present = imminent danger
Is this real? It sounds like satire, but I just can’t tell any more.
Source?
Fizz@lemmy.nz 9 months ago
Wow what a disgusting “justification” from the idf.
yarr@feddit.nl 9 months ago
Unfortunately, they sleep very well at night.