Comment by GordonS
4 days ago
Right, because in the absence of credible evidence, just saying a thing makes it true... at least for Israeli Hasbara...
4 days ago
Right, because in the absence of credible evidence, just saying a thing makes it true... at least for Israeli Hasbara...
Generally the burden of proof for a crime is to prove guilt not innocence. Innocence is presumed.
I mean, that's my point? Innocense should be presumed, but Israel says "that hospital is a terrorist hotbed of evil!", the western media parrots it verbatim, and then the IDF blows up a hospital - all without credible evidence, and sometimes with fabricated evidence.
You are acting like this is an either-or, but its not. You can presume innocence for both alleged crimes.
It is entirely logically consistent to say - i do not have enough evidence to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that hamas was illegally using this particular hospital for military purposes when israel blew it up. Without proof of that, its unfair to conclude the hamas violated the rules of war.
And at the same time say: i don't have reasonable grounds to conclude that israel didn't have evidence to conclude the hospital had lost its protected status due to being used in hostilities. Thus i can't conclude that israel violated the laws of war either.
Presuming innocence doesn't mean you take one side over another. It means you presume neither side comitted a crime until you see evidence to the contrary.
1 reply →