Justified?

Israel and its allies have insisted the bombings are justified because it has the right to self-defence in response to the October 7 Hamas attacks that killed 1,200 people and injured more than 5,600 in southern Israel. According to Article 51 of the UN Charter, until the UN Security Council takes measures to maintain international peace and security, “nothing in the charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations.”

Many experts aren’t convinced that it does apply. The attack Israel faced on October 7 came from an armed group in a territory, Gaza, that Israel has effectively controlled. “Israel does not claim it has been threatened by another state. It has been threatened by an armed group within an occupied territory. It cannot claim the right of self-defence against a threat that emanates from a territory it occupies, from a territory kept under belligerent occupation,” Albanese said.

Armed conflicts are governed by international humanitarian law (IHL), a set of rules contained in international agreements like the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 as well as other agreements and conventions meant to ensure that all member nations subscribe to a list of fundamental rules during conflicts. In the current conflict, though, experts said Israel’s actions seem to violate all of the four main principles of IHL: distinction between civilians and combatants, proportionality between anticipated loss of civilian life and damage and the strategic military advantage of an attack, legitimate military purposes and the humane treatment of all individuals from civilians to detainees and hostages.

Yet Israel has been unrelenting in these attacks despite facing heavy criticism. Experts have pointed to how it has relied on the claim, backed by the US and EU, that Hamas is using civilians in these places as 'human shields'. “The claim that civilians are being used as human shields does not absolve a party from its obligations under IHL. Even if combatants are present, attacks must still adhere to the principles of distinction and proportionality,” Overton said, pointing to how UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called Gaza a “graveyard for children” on November 7.

At least three Palestinian rights groups have filed a lawsuit with the International Criminal Court (ICC) against Israel during the ongoing war. And this week, French lawyer Gilles Devers submitted a complaint to the prosecutor at the ICC on behalf of Gaza victims. A US-based civil rights group, the Center for Constitutional Rights, has also sued Biden and senior members of his cabinet for “complicity” in the “unfolding genocide”.

Al Jazeera.com
Only the losers in war get charged with war crimes.
Israel is backed the USA and UK, the USA doesn't recognise the ICC as legitimate, Trump threatened to sanction ICC judges if they ever tried to indict any American.
While the above is the case, Israel can do as it likes.
 
Only the losers in war get charged with war crimes.
Israel is backed the USA and UK, the USA doesn't recognise the ICC as legitimate, Trump threatened to sanction ICC judges if they ever tried to indict any American.
While the above is the case, Israel can do as it likes.
Israel (backed by USA) also refuses to allow UN independent investigations.
 
This was the issue that Israel persuaded USA to denounce Hamas as terrorists. Israel boarded the ship in international waters.
There was no evidence whatsoever that the arms were destined for Hamas.

Israel claimed these arms were destined for use by Hamas.
When one looks at the list of arms, it defies logic that these were destined for Hamas.
Radar systems on towers?
Anti-Ship cruise missiles?

This was the basis for USA labelling Hamas as terrosits, and UK following suit.
It's difficult to deny or confirm the armaments were destined for Hamas or even en route to rebels in the Horn of Africa. Under the circumstances i'd say the Israeli govt. played safe and confiscated it on reasonable grounds of suspicion.
 
It's difficult to deny or confirm the armaments were destined for Hamas or even en route to rebels in the Horn of Africa. Under the circumstances i'd say the Israeli govt. played safe and confiscated it on reasonable grounds of suspicion.
Sorry, I might have linked to the wrong issue.
USA designated Hamas as terrorists in 1995, well before the Victoria affair.
I'll have to look up the previous time that israel identified a ship supposedly carrying weapons to Palestine.
The PLO at the time argued it was an Israeli duplicit set up.
The situation was very similar. Israel tracking a ship, supposedly containing arms for Palestine, boarded in international waters, and the 'evidence' shown to the US representative 'Nizzen'. I'll have to check on the name, rank, dates etc.
 
That's for him to say, yes?
After all; who can truly know the Mind Of Bod...:unsure:
Yes, of course.
I admit to trying to predict the mind of Bod.

I must not try to predict the mind of Bod.
I must not try to predict the mind of Bod.
I must not try to predict the mind of Bod.
I must not try to predict the mind of Bod.
ad infinitum.
 
Like motorbiking, you're more concerned with presentation than content.
You have no intelligent response to my content, so you concern yourself with my presentation. :rolleyes:
What part of you don't listen or concede do you not understand. If you keep coming up against a brick wall it's pointless keep banging your head against it.
 
What part of you don't listen or concede do you not understand. If you keep coming up against a brick wall it's pointless keep banging your head against it.
Then why do you do it? :rolleyes:
 
Sorry, I might have linked to the wrong issue.
USA designated Hamas as terrorists in 1995, well before the Victoria affair.
I'll have to look up the previous time that israel identified a ship supposedly carrying weapons to Palestine.
The PLO at the time argued it was an Israeli duplicit set up.
The situation was very similar. Israel tracking a ship, supposedly containing arms for Palestine, boarded in international waters, and the 'evidence' shown to the US representative 'Nizzen'. I'll have to check on the name, rank, dates etc.
Sorry, getting my dates and affairs mixed up.
The ship was the Karine A, and the issue was called the Karine A affair.
But this is very much a version in hindsight, and with a distinct anti Palestine slant. Most of those details were not available at the time, and may have been 'doctored' for 'effect'.
The issue was designed to scupper the impending peace agreement between Arafat and Sharon.
Arafat denied all knowledge of the affair, and claimed an Israeli set-up. Bush chose to not believe him.
The impending peace deal fell apart.
Again Bush was more concerned with invading Iraq than any possible peace deal between israel and Palestine.

Also, USA designated Hamas as terrorist in 1997, according to ths account:
 
Why do you belittle people with words and the emoji in numerous posts too many to mention, when you haven't the capacity to see any other point of view other than your own?
Why are you so concerned with presentation, when you haven't the capacity to see any other point of view other than your own? :rolleyes:
 
Ladbrokes wouldn't give me a price in you answering in any other way.
Perhaps you'd like to write my responses for me? :rolleyes:

Try these:
What makes this sportsbook stand out as the most reliable for betting? How do they ensure transparency and honesty? Can you elaborate on the significance of playing calmly and not getting too worked up?
 
Back
Top