Jazny
Brownlow Medallist
- Nov 2, 2014
- 20,871
- 39,094
- AFL Club
- Tasmania
- Other Teams
- #TeamTurboChooks
Do you either not read, or not understand the articles you link? You keep making the worst possible arguments to defend your positions, it's really bizarre.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
Israeli airstrike in the northern West Bank kills a Palestinian militant and wounds 5 other people
Israeli troops carried out an airstrike in the northern West Bank on Sunday, killing a Palestinian militant and wounding five other people.www.stripes.com
View attachment 2035708
Because if you are arguing the West Bank is a war zone, then you are making Israel's case for these kinds of strikes much stronger. If its an ongoing conflict, all Israel has to do under IHL is show that the strike in the BBC article was done against people they reasonably identified as combatants (that weren't hors de combat).
If it's not a war, then the situation is governed IHRL instead or IHL which has higher standards of protection. That's why the timing of the strikes matters. From the article: "Law enforcement is governed by international human rights law, which prohibits the intentional use of lethal force except when strictly necessary to protect life."
So Israel's case for killing those men is much harder in reality, where there isn't a recognised war, because they don't just have to prove they were members of an armed force that they are at war with, but they have to prove they were posing a threat to life. According to the witnesses, the men were just camping peacefully at the time. If that's true, then under IHRL it was a crime regardless of who those men were affiliated with.
If you are arguing it's a war zone, then you are giving Israel much more lenient sets of guidelines to work under in the West Bank than what they do in reality.
Last edited: