Current WAR CRIMES Israel - Hamas - Hezbollah - Houthis

[Lunchlady Doris]

Just as six more hostages are murdered. Could there be anything more tone deaf?

The cancellation of these licenses is due to advice from Foreign Office officials in Israel that there was clear evidence of breaches of international law in Gaza, and these breaches were so obvious the UK risked being found complicit in those war crimes.

David Cameron has ignored this advice for months.

Here you are, railing against the decision.

David Cameron sat on advice that there was breach of law in Gaza, officials say

The former foreign secretary is said to have been advised on the risk of UK complicity

www.theguardian.com

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

The answer to this is so simple: any resistance still has to comply with international law. Regardless of the legality of the armed conflict, all parties are still bound by IHL. I don't know why you are framing it as "Jazny approved fashion" like I invented the laws.

And in the case of Gaza specifically, how are Hamas to achieve this? Given a 75 year occupation and decades long blockade - how do you expect Hamas to resist? The conditions Israel have inflicted on them make any form of conventional military offensive impossible.

If you fail to answer this again, we can only assume your proposal is for them to lay down and die. Israel had been slowly gobbling up the West Bank for a long time before Oct 7th, and has only accelerated since. You may prefer for them to quietly disappear, but they shouldn't.

Could you please please show me a single post where I have said "hostage taking, killing soldiers hors de combat, killing civilians with no military justification" is a legit form of self defense when Israel do it? Just one post. Something even close would do. If you go looking, please don't confuse jus ad bellum with jus in bello.

It may be you are just extremely one-sided in your condmenation of war crimes, and that is the impression you have given. I'm not going to check your post history, I retract and apologise.

Really? Do you seriously believe that Palestinians, whether Hamas, members of other armed groups, or civilians, are no more protected against Israeli breachesof law under law enforcement regulations than they would be under the laws of armed combat?

That's the point of my post. Where there is no hostilities rising to the level of a recognised ongoing non-international armed conflict, law enforcement models should be used. This is and has been the case for the West Bank for the most part, according to Human Rights Watch. This is important as it offers better protections to Palestinians there, regardless of their affiliations (or non affiliation), because the standards for use of deadly force under LE is much more strict than LOAC. Israel often uses a mix of LE and LOAC, but in my opinion and the opinions of people who care about excessive use of force against Palestinians (not just Palestinian terrorists, as civilians often get caught up in the fighting, see the airstrike in Jenin the is almost certainly a crime from Israeli forces), the standard should be LE specifically in the West Bank.

I don't get how you stretched so hard on that one, I was expecting you to mostly agree with that post lol.

We can talk about how the different standard might apply in this case. Even though it looks like a breach of both LE and LOAC to me, but any potential Israeli defense of this strike is easier under LOAC.

West Bank strike: Israel accused of targeting civilians in deadly attack

The IDF says the strike hit a “terrorist squad”, but witnesses tell the BBC the group posed no threat.

www.bbc.com

It doesn't matter what I believe, what might be better for Palestinians etc. Israel have shown time and again they dont give a shit about your LE or LOAC. No one is going to stop them killing Palestinians.

It might help you justify events to treat the situation as if this is all some Hamas caused scenario - the fact is there is a decades long brutal illegal military occupation. Ongoing since before Hamas existed. That is by definition an ongoing conflict.




Yes, I really believe it makes no difference to your average West Bank Palestinian, who were being murdered in record numbers on Oct 6th 2023, whether HRW considered the occupation an ongoing non-international armed conflict. Do you think they do now?

I really would like a link to this opinion though. Also why my statement on the ICJ opinion is wrong.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

This is your best defense, and I can accept you might actually be making this point when you say it. The problem is the war started on October 7th and because of October 7th. Most people in this thread don't know much about international law or international relations, so they think conflict always means the same as what we think of as war. It doesn't.

There is an ongoing conflict between North and South Korea right now. This doesn't mean that North Korea has jus ad bellum, or the right to launch a mass armed attack against South Korea due to the ongoing conflict (or vice versa). If they did, it wouldn't be just a normal continuation of the hostilities, it would trigger a war, and the new Korean War would be called something like The 2024 Korean War to distinguish it from the Korean war of the 50s. It would be incorrect to see the war as just a continuation of the conflict that started decades ago.

It's not relevant to the atrocity of October 7th.

Please read and understand this - Palestinians do not lose their right to self-defence and their right to recover their occupied territory just because time has passed! In fact it's because so much time has passed with Israel giving no indication they intend on ending the occupation that there is no other reaosnable means of bringing the occuptaion to an end but via the use of force! Your post here is absolute nonsense.

 

[ZEV]

Please read and understand this - Palestinians do not lose their right to self-defence and their right to recover their occupied territory just because time has passed! In fact it's because so much time has passed with Israel giving no indication they intend on ending the occupation that there is no other reaosnable means of bringing the occuptaion to an end but via the use of force! Your post here is absolute nonsense.

View attachment 2100754

You have just posted an abstract of an argument. Even then you have it wrong.

Hamas is a non-state actor.

I know you so desperately want to believe they are the good guys but chill a little.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

You have just posted an abstract of an argument. Even then you have it wrong.

Hamas is a non-state actor.

Palestinians have the right to resist based on the principle of self-determination for peoples under foreign rule, as well as the right to armed struggle to achieve self-determination. See Geneva Conventions and multiple UN General Assembly resolutions.

You don't get to dictate who can resist, or how it's achieved.

I know you so desperately want to believe they are the good guys but chill a little.

This is not cops and robbers, but one certainty is that despite your training, Israel sure as hell are not the good guys.

 

[Jazny]

And in the case of Gaza specifically, how are Hamas to achieve this? Given a 75 year occupation and decades long blockade - how do you expect Hamas to resist? The conditions Israel have inflicted on them make any form of conventional military offensive impossible.

They would be far better off, have far more international support, if they resisted peacefully, recognised the Israeli state, officially revoke their original charter, and only use military means as a last resort. I feel bad that Gazans trying peaceful means of resistance like the March of Return have their plans hijacked by militants in the past.

There is no argument to make that Hamas's actions are legit self defense. Nor is their terrorism making the situation better. Encouraging Hamas terrorism is the worst thing you can do for Palestinian civilians.

It may be you are just extremely one-sided in your condmenation of war crimes, and that is the impression you have given. I'm not going to check your post history, I retract and apologise.

Thanks

It doesn't matter what I believe, what might be better for Palestinians etc. Israel have shown time and again they dont give a shit about your LE or LOAC. No one is going to stop them killing Palestinians.

I don't agree with this, but you can make a strong case that regardless of the standards used, Israel doesn't do a good job of convicting or sentencing perpetrators from within their own forces.

It might help you justify events to treat the situation as if this is all some Hamas caused scenario - the fact is there is a decades long brutal illegal military occupation. Ongoing since before Hamas existed. That is by definition an ongoing conflict.

View attachment 2100746

You can make that argument, but whether the situation in Gaza even applies to the argument laid out in the abstract is very questionable to say the least.

But even if I grant it all, then what is stopping Israel from merely continuing their armed conflict by responding to the security threat with military force? All this would mean is Israel can't use the language of article 51, they could still respond to Hamas with military force within IHL with the aim of eliminating Hamas. The illegality of their occupation would not prevent them from conducting the war, IHL doesn't work that way.

Having a jus ad bellum does not mean the opposing army must surrender or not respond proportionally to the threat.

I really would like a link to this opinion though. Also why my statement on the ICJ opinion is wrong.

Sure, can you restate it because I don't want to straw man your position. We already have too many arguments going lol.

 

[ZEV]

Hamas are Palestinian, and have held governing positions in Gaza for some time.

Palestinians have the right to self determination. Hamas has removed this and is a terrorist organisation controlling a portion of "Palestine".

Palestinians have the right to resist based on the principle of self-determination for peoples under foreign rule, as well as the right to armed struggle to achieve self-determination. See Geneva Conventions and multiple UN General Assembly resolutions.

Now you saying that Israel governs Gaza? Not Hamas? Can't have your cake and eat it too mate.

Are you saying that Palestinian right to armed struggle includes targeting Israeli citizens?

You don't get to dictate who can resist, or how it's achieved.

But you feel that you can dictate how Israel can defend itself?

This is not cops and robbers, but one certainty is that despite your training, Israel sure as hell are not the good guys.

Don't take this the wrong way but after thousands of years of fighting to stay alive do you really think we care what someone like you thinks?

 

[Jazny]

Are you saying that Palestinian right to armed struggle includes targeting Israeli citizens?

They definitely don't. It would be illegal for Palestinian armed groups to target civilian Israeli settlers in the West Bank, let alone civilians in Israel proper.

Please read and understand this - Palestinians do not lose their right to self-defence and their right to recover their occupied territory just because time has passed! In fact it's because so much time has passed with Israel giving no indication they intend on ending the occupation that there is no other reaosnable means of bringing the occuptaion to an end but via the use of force! Your post here is absolute nonsense.

View attachment 2100754

My argument wasn't about time passing invalidating self defense. The abstract had nothing to do with what I said.

It's that two belligerents who have the status of an ongoing conflict (which there are many in the world) doesnt mean they have continual jus ad bellum for any escalating attack they might make or use of force. This is just a fact.

https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/document_new/file_list/armed_conflict_defined_in_ihl.pdf

Also, acting in self defense is not carte blanche to launch any kind of attack you like. Necessity and proportionality still apply and are ongoing considerations. Ukraine's counter invasion into Russian territory is a good example of how this kind of attack or escalation can be legally justified in some circumstances if it's necessary and proportional. The Ukraine argument is its the only way they can counter long range missile launched within Russia is to incur into their territory to create a buffer zone to protect themselves from these strikes. So its necessary and proportional.

Note that they couldn't legally send their army into Moscow and start randomly killing and kidnapping Russians (the justification for the operation would fail the necessity criteria on top of the action being an in bello violation of LOAC).

There is no world where the October 7th attacks could possibly be considered a legal form of self defense, or a legal in bello military operation.

It was an unlawful terrorist attack and absolutely has given Israel the right to respond militarily to eliminate the threat in accordance with IHL. The best arguments against Israel is that they aren't conducting the war in accordance with IHL.

 

[DapperDon]

Don't take this the wrong way but after thousands of years of fighting to stay alive do you really think we care what someone like you thinks?

This victim mentality is pretty tiresome

Don't take it the wrong way

 

[faible]

Don't take this the wrong way but after thousands of years of fighting to stay alive do you really think we care what someone like you thinks?

You should probably care about war crimes being committed by a government of a country you (from memory) claim to have citizenship in. Yes.

 

[Jazny]

This victim mentality is pretty tiresome

Don't take it the wrong way

This is a poor comment.

 

[DapperDon]

This is a poor comment.

It's not really, using previous tragedies to justify current ones is poor.

 

[jason_recliner]

... but after thousands of years of fighting to stay alive do you really think we care what someone like you thinks?

Utter trash. Do you think life was easy for anybody thousands of years ago? We are all here because our ancestors fought to stay alive. Only most of use don't use it as an excuse to bully the less powerful and wealthy, and commit war crimes and crimes against humanity.

 

[ZEV]

It's not really, using previous tragedies to justify current ones is poor.

I wasn't justifying anything.

Just telling Lunchlady Doris I couldn't give a shit about his incorrect takes on Hamas and his justification for terrorism.

 

[ZEV]

Utter trash. Do you think life was easy for anybody thousands of years ago? We are all here because our ancestors fought to stay alive. Only most of use don't use it as an excuse to bully the less powerful and wealthy, and commit war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Have you fought to stay alive?

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

I wasn't justifying anything.

Just telling Lunchlady Doris I couldn't give a shit about his incorrect takes on Hamas and his justification for terrorism.

Who is going to be less biased - an Israeli Zionist or a 3rd party observer half a world away with no real stakes in the conflict.

 

[Jazny]

Utter trash. Do you think life was easy for anybody thousands of years ago? We are all here because our ancestors fought to stay alive. Only most of use don't use it as an excuse to bully the less powerful and wealthy, and commit war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The antisemitism built into this is sad. Are you seriously arguing that bullying people less wealthy is a motivation in the current conflict? Where do these hot-takes come from? This is the first I have ever heard this one. But it plays into the racist rhetoric of Jews being rich and powerful and greedy so I am not surprised someone is trying to shovel it in to this current conflict somehow.

Economic antisemitism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[DapperDon]

The antisemitism built into this is sad. Are you seriously arguing that bullying people less wealthy is a motivation in the current conflict? Where do these hot-takes come from? This is the first I have ever heard this one. But it plays into the racist rhetoric of Jews being rich and powerful and greedy so I am not surprised someone is trying to shovel it in to this current conflict somehow.

Economic antisemitism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Explain the antisemitism please jazny?

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Explain the antisemitism please jazny?

He just did.

 

[DapperDon]

He just did.

Not his strawman one, his real one.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

They would be far better off, have far more international support, if they resisted peacefully, recognised the Israeli state, officially revoke their original charter, and only use military means as a last resort. I feel bad that Gazans trying peaceful means of resistance like the March of Return have their plans hijacked by militants in the past.

So exactly what Fatah and the PA have tried to do in the West Bank? And for that they have lived under brutal apartheid conditions, watched their poeple killed and kidnapped, their homes be stolen or destroyed. For decades with no indication of anything changing.

Just lie down and quietly die is your answer.

Sure, can you restate it because I don't want to straw man your position. We already have too many arguments going lol.

Here is your claim that Israel's 75 year occupation is actually cool and good:

Also remember that the illegality of Israel's occupation hasn't been properly tested, and even the advisory opinion was ambiguous with respect to Gaza.

An absolutely astounding claim. My reply - which you seem to think is a misunderstanding of the ICJs 19 July ruling:

You are well aware the court determined the Palestinian territories constitute one political unit and that Israel's occupation since 1967, and the subsequent creation of Israeli settlements and exploitation of natural resources, are illegal under international law.

 

[jason_recliner]

The antisemitism built into this is sad. Are you seriously arguing that bullying people less wealthy is a motivation in the current conflict? Where do these hot-takes come from? This is the first I have ever heard this one. But it plays into the racist rhetoric of Jews being rich and powerful and greedy so I am not surprised someone is trying to shovel it in to this current conflict somehow.

Economic antisemitism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Do you think the innocent civilians of Gaza being murdered by Israel in their tens of thousands are wealthy and powerful? Righto.

 

[Jazny]

Just lie down and quietly die is your answer.


Here is your claim that Israel's 75 year occupation is actually cool and good:

Why did you stop engaging properly with the debate and resort to this? I will just take it as you conceding those points.

An absolutely astounding claim. My reply - which you seem to think is a misunderstanding of the ICJs 19 July ruling:

The point I made was accurate and I am talking about the current Hamas-Israel war so I am referring to Gaza post withdrawal, which is the reality of the situation as it stands and is where any test of self defense would apply. Advisory opinions aren't legally binding and are there to clarify questions posed to them. Not to find guilt, but they can make recommendations and are used as to guide legal arguments. They have some weight, but are not the same as a formal hearing into a specific case.

The court findings treated Israeli activities in the West Bank and Gaza differently and it is explained why in the document. In the paragraph you referenced, the court is just reiterating that from a legal standpoint, the OPT includes the territory of Gaza, it's not saying that Israel's occupation of Gaza is legally the same as it's occupation of the West Bank. It does however make recommendations under this OPT umbrella term, but this point was controversial in the separate opinions of the judges for the very reason that the situation in Gaza and the OTP is different.

The advisory opinion is largely damning for Israel in the West Bank, but as for Israeli obligations in Gaza, the court found "that Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip has not entirely released it of its obligations under the law of occupation. Israel’s obligations have remained commensurate with the degree of its effective control over the Gaza Strip".

The reason this was so ambiguous, I gather, is so it could present it in a way to achieve consensus, as if you read the seperate opinions of the judges, some have expressed doubt about the legality merits of this finding even the way its worded. Of note in particular are Iwasawa and Celeveland as they both voted in favour of the relevant opinions in the end so they can hardly be thought of as rogue judges or some such.

Judge Iwasawa:


Judges Tomka, Abraham and Arescue voted against it for this reason among others:

Judge Cleveland


I don't see how my claim is astounding because it's basically in line with the advisory opinion and even softer than some of these judges say in their separate opinions.

 

[Jazny]

After all this reading I expect a much better junket from Israel next time! The last time I had to actually pay for what I took from the minifridge!

Please don't let Ghost Patrol know I said this though. He is on to me

 

[Ghost Patrol]

He just did.

The misogyny built into this is sad. Are you seriously arguing that gender is a motivation in the current discussion? Where do these hot-takes come from? This is the first I have ever heard this one. But it plays into the misogynistic rhetoric of Jazny being rich and powerful and greedy so I am not surprised someone is trying to shovel it in to this current discussion somehow.