Jazny
Brownlow Medallist
- Nov 2, 2014
- 20,707
- 38,922
- AFL Club
- Tasmania
- Other Teams
- #TeamTurboChooks
No.So you think Israel can use Oct 7 as justification for killing 40,000+ Palestinians
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 3 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
No.So you think Israel can use Oct 7 as justification for killing 40,000+ Palestinians
Just as six more hostages are murdered. Could there be anything more tone deaf?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.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.
ThanksIt 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.
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 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.
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.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
Sure, can you restate it because I don't want to straw man your position. We already have too many arguments going lol.I really would like a link to this opinion though. Also why my statement on the ICJ opinion is wrong.
Hamas are Palestinian, and have held governing positions in Gaza for some time.
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.
This is not cops and robbers, but one certainty is that despite your training, Israel sure as hell are not the good guys.
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.Are you saying that Palestinian right to armed struggle includes targeting Israeli citizens?
My argument wasn't about time passing invalidating self defense. The abstract had nothing to do with what I said.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
This victim mentality is pretty tiresomeDon'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?
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 is a poor comment.This victim mentality is pretty tiresome
Don't take it the wrong way
It's not really, using previous tragedies to justify current ones is poor.This is a poor comment.
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.... but after thousands of years of fighting to stay alive do you really think we care what someone like you thinks?
It's not really, using previous tragedies to justify current ones is poor.
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.
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.
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.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.
Explain the antisemitism please jazny?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
He just did.Explain the antisemitism please jazny?
Not his strawman one, his real one.He just did.
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.
Sure, can you restate it because I don't want to straw man your position. We already have too many arguments going lol.
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.
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.
Do you think the innocent civilians of Gaza being murdered by Israel in their tens of thousands are wealthy and powerful? Righto.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
Why did you stop engaging properly with the debate and resort to this? I will just take it as you conceding those points.Just lie down and quietly die is your answer.
Here is your claim that Israel's 75 year occupation is actually cool and good:
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.An absolutely astounding claim. My reply - which you seem to think is a misunderstanding of the ICJs 19 July ruling: