“These attacks violate the human right to life, absent any indication that the victims posed an imminent lethal threat to anyone else at the time.”
“These attacks violate the human right to life, absent any indication that the victims posed an imminent lethal threat to anyone else at the time.”
Does launching rockets at Israel violate international law?
Did the kids killed by rockets in a soccer field pose an imminent lethal threat?
I’m gonna put you in a cage, feed you at a minimum and beat you every day.
When you gonna bite me out of despair, I will unleash all my fury on you, your family and your friends saying to everyone it’s YOUR FAULT this is happening.
Find what’s wrong in that little story and your eyes might open up.
That won’t happen because he’d have to recognize both actors as human beings. You’re missing the basic premise of Zionism. Zionism comes from the assumption that Palestinians are not human beings so they are never supposed to fight back, just take any abuse and be happy with it and die when they’re told to. Like farm animals. If a cow is being branded and kills her handler she will be caught and put down. Nobody is going to justify what she did even though she just defended herself.
This is how Zionists view Palestinians. Making arguments about humanity with them is moot because they don’t recognize Palestinians as such. Like Nazism, you can’t solve this problem until this hateful ideology is rooted out from the core.
Hezbollah is not Palestinian.
But its beef with Israel is because of Palestinians. Even so, I should’ve said Arabs. Israel’s problem is with Arabs in general, Palestinians just happen to be the easiest target.
When Hezbollah launched rockets at Israel on Oct 8, it wasn’t because Hezbollah was in “despair” or because Israel had put Hezbollah “in a cage” or because Hezbollah had “a minimum of food”.
Hezbollah wanted to start a fight with Israel. And it got one.
Would you agree in characterizing SOME of the settlers in the West Bank as terrorists? Would that justify bombing all Israelis there?
You just made my point.
Bombing by who? Hezbollah? No, because those settlers aren’t operating in Lebanon.
Yours is the same reasoning Russia used to justify invading Ukraine. Even if SOME people in Azov can be characterized as fascists, as long as Azov remains in Ukraine there is no justification for Russia to attack them.
You seem incapable to apply simple logic to an argument. This conversation is over.
deleted by creator
Your story has nothing to do with Hezbollah
You say they’re terrorists if I’m not mistaken.
Why then would you judge morality against what you say is immoral? I think like every mainstream religious text ever has something about two wrongs don’t make a right.
First of all, I never said Hezbollah are terrorists.
More important, this is about legality not morality. Governments adhere to the laws of armed conflict not out morality, but because they want their enemies to adhere to them. International law is always transactional.
So if a government doesn’t adhere to the laws of armed conflict, then its enemies won’t adhere to them either. That’s pretty much the only enforcement mechanism, by the way.
Interesting.
It’s internationally illegal to booby trap by any means civilian objects in a non combat area filled with non coms.
No there’s the hague, this one Israel actually signed.
Israel (like the USA) has withdrawn from the Rome Statute and no longer accepts jurisdiction of the ICC.
Unlike you or me, states are sovereign and are allowed to withdraw from treaty jurisdiction. The ICC even specifies the process for doing so.
Booby traps are banned by the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. But like all treaties, failure to abide by it simply means Israel’s enemies won’t abide by it.
Treaties are like contracts. When you sign an employment contract, your employer agrees to pay you and you agree to show up to work. If you fail to show up, your employer can’t really force you to work. They just stop paying you. And if your employer unilaterally decides not to pay you any more then you can decide not to show up to work any more.
Likewise, if a country exits the EU or NATO or NAFTA or the Geneva Convention, then they stop receiving the benefits of membership. Nothing more.
Not accepting it any longer does not negate the prior agreement nor does it mean they aren’t breaking international law. It list means they’ll cry and play the downtrodden when they’re finally dragged picking and screaming to trial.
More, it means no safe zone can be held as safe. They’ve done it very specifically so no cease fire will ever be accepted.
Nope, there’s clauses that allow most of those bodies to act directly against them now without reprocussion.
If you check the link, you’ll see that the treaty specifies Israel’s obligations after leaving. Namely, they are obligated to cooperate with active investigations commencing prior to withdrawal.
They left in 2002. There are no remaining investigations that were active prior to withdrawal.
They are “breaking international law” in the sense that I am “breaking Russian law” when I protest their invasion of Ukraine.
Russian law is meaningless to me unless I am in Russia. And the ICC is meaningless unless someone is in a state that accepts ICC jurisdiction.
There are plenty of people with ICC arrest warrants who have not been dragged to the Hague. Including Putin. They avoid going to the Hague simply by never setting foot in countries under ICC jurisdiction.
There are no such clauses.
Keep in mind that the USA also withdrew from the ICC. China never signed at all. Nevertheless, international bodies cannot act against the USA or China “without repercussion”. The same is true of Israel.
There’s been an investigation into Israels actions for quite some time, like 95’ or so iirc. Israelis refusing acceptance doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.
Also: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-submits-challenges-icc-gaza-arrest-warrant-requests-2024-09-20/
Not at all the same boss, there is no accepted international ruling on hurting Russias feelings, there are however several about maiming civilians and booby trapping everyday items.
Yeah that’s why they have open warrants, it essentially excludes them from several countries and prevents their attendance at several conferences.
Haven’t been dragged in… Yet. Yet being the keyword.
There are, most of those clauses say you are only protected by them if you sign them and if you refuse whatever you refuse to sign for can be used against you. We already went over this and notably last time it was you explaining it though you seemingly did not connect the dots.
I’m well aware, it’s why countries and adversarial parties use specific weapons against us troops. They absolutely can, we just went over sovereign discretion.
No, there are no open warrants against Israel.
ICC prosecutors have requested arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant based on war crimes in Palestine (which is an ICC member). But ICC courts haven’t issued warrants yet, and it may never happen. If it did, it would not restrict Israelis in general. It would just mean that Netanyahu and Gallant could not visit ICC states.
At no point has the ICC ever entered a non-ICC country to drag anyone in, in fact they are explicitly forbidden from doing so. Some other country could take it upon themselves to declare war on Israel and try to capture and extradite him. Spoiler alert: that’s never going to happen, because it isn’t worth it. Whether you like it or not, countries prioritize respect for sovereignty over prosecuting war crimes.
The only people who can drag in Netanyahu are Israelis themselves. That’s why when anyone asks
the answer is always “we are going to do nothing”.
Just ask Joseph Kony, who is still free despite an ICC warrant issued in 2006. Or Ahmed Haroun. Or Omar al-Bashir. All are wanted for war crimes, yet nobody can be bothered to bring them in.