|
|
Post by Orac on Oct 11, 2024 13:53:00 GMT
That's a fine opinion. You would of course have to balance care with the pragmatic needs of conducting the war at all. If you took total care you would remain motionless while hamas lined up more bonfires for the jews And no one here is asking for that. Just end the 'well we had to use a really big bomb because we're not sure where the target was and anyway only Arab civilians died' method of Israel. It's counter productive and it's illegal link
'a general prohibition of attacks against civilians and other protected persons and objects (I). This prohibition covers direct and intentional attacks against on civilians (1), as well as the prohibition of indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks because of their incidental effect on civilians and other protected persons and objects (2). The protection of IHL against attack may be weakened or lost when civilians participate directly in hostilities or when civilians’ objects are used or misused to commit acts harmful to the enemy. However, this is not sufficient to make their attack a lawful one. Compliance with the IHL rules of precaution and proportionality remains imperative (II). IHL does not provide a pre-defined table for calculating the proportionality of an attack. It is therefore the duty of commanders to ensure that the IHL obligations of distinction, precaution and proportionality are respected in the targeting process and, if not, to abort the attack.' So ordering forces to attack with 'no restraint' and subsequent mass killing of civilians was intentional breaking of international law. No, Steve, You have an opinion that Israel's actions are illegal. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,300
|
Post by Steve on Oct 11, 2024 16:59:20 GMT
You think I'm alone in that? If so think again. link , link Feel free to show how the level of civilian killing we've seen is legal. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Oct 11, 2024 20:21:09 GMT
Does anyone know what's the value ratio of Jews to Palestinians In a war situation, each antagonist can be assumed to value its own citizens far more highly than its enemy's citizens Are you really expecting a nation in a war situation to be trying to balance the death figures out with the enemy? Yes but what about bystanders? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Oct 12, 2024 10:30:02 GMT
In a war situation, each antagonist can be assumed to value its own citizens far more highly than its enemy's citizens Are you really expecting a nation in a war situation to be trying to balance the death figures out with the enemy? Yes but what about bystanders? It sounds to me like you trying to use semantics to make something unreal real. What is the point? Nobody is going to allow themselves to be invaded and butchered in their beds because you created a semantic category that makes any sensible resistance to this fate 'illegal' I honestly think many on the left struggle with this. The objective of law is to allow order, not to create and encourage chaos |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,300
|
Post by Steve on Oct 12, 2024 11:59:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Oct 12, 2024 12:28:44 GMT
Yes but what about bystanders? It sounds to me like you trying to use semantics to make something unreal real. What is the point? Nobody is going to allow themselves to be invaded and butchered in their beds because you created a semantic category that makes any sensible resistance to this fate 'illegal' I honestly think many on the left struggle with this. The objective of law is to allow order, not to create and encourage chaos Its not semantics. The people who invaded Israel were not the same people the Israelis are killing and that is the problem. That is why the world is condemning them, that is why many Israelis are now condemning Netanyahu. The objective of law is to allow fairness. Law from the barrel of a gun is not law. If it was we would not have an independent judiciary and trial by jury. I leave you with Steve's video. I think it very clearly explains what Israel has become. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Oct 12, 2024 12:31:47 GMT
Well, acting deliberately and purely to kill non combatant children and / or acting purely with the intent to block (say) an ambulance reaching those people, are both crimes in Israeli law.
So I imagine, if this is what actually took place and it can be substantiated that this is the case, I should imagine those involved will be arrested and charged with crimes under Israeli law.
You notice that there were a few ifs in this though?
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Oct 12, 2024 12:34:50 GMT
Well, acting deliberately and purely to kill non combatant children and / or acting purely with the intent to block (say) an ambulance reaching those people, are both crimes in Israeli law. So I imagine, if this is what actually took place and it can be substantiated that this is the case, I should imagine those involved will be arrested and charged with crimes under Israeli law. You notice that there were a few ifs in this though? I admire your imagination. Truth is there are dozens of cases and quite a lot of evidence, but so long as Netanyahu and the far right control Israel no one will be prosecuted. You might as well say such thing are illegal in Haiti or the DRC. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Oct 12, 2024 12:52:56 GMT
It sounds to me like you trying to use semantics to make something unreal real. What is the point? Nobody is going to allow themselves to be invaded and butchered in their beds because you created a semantic category that makes any sensible resistance to this fate 'illegal' I honestly think many on the left struggle with this. The objective of law is to allow order, not to create and encourage chaos Its not semantics. The people who invaded Israel were not the same people the Israelis are killing and that is the problem. Inadvertently, you make my case and position for me. This situation is a consequence of the fact that the Gazans as a collective are unable or unwilling to form a government that would allow Israel to seek redress by going to the Gazan authorities and the Gazan authorities responding thus - "Do not invade us, we give you our sincere assurance that every effort will be made to find these murderers and we will even allow them to be extradited, so they can be tried by your legal system"However, nothing like this can happen because, according to Gaza as a political entity, capturing and burning Jews alive is not a crime. This is how diplomacy between functioning societies works - it is why, if a group of Brits crossed over into France and shot hundreds of innocent party-goers, the result would not be a war between France and Britian but a war between France-Britain and the murderers THe plight of innocent Gazans genuinely trapped in the situation is one of the prices of living in a dysfunctional shit-tip.Nobody has ever claimed that there is no price for total social chaos. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,300
|
Post by Steve on Oct 12, 2024 15:14:42 GMT
Just broad brushing and ignoring the reality that very few current Gazans have ever had the chance to vote for an administration and none of them have in nearly 20 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Oct 12, 2024 17:31:54 GMT
Just broad brushing and ignoring the reality that very few current Gazans have ever had the chance to vote for an administration and none of them have in nearly 20 years. I'm not ignoring - it's factored into (a part of) my position. I'm explaining in political terms why it can make no odds. Political reality can't allow broken shit pits with no proper government to gain a form of collective immunity advantage from their failure. The only people who can be properly allowed to suffer from such a failure are those doing the failing - anything else will allow failure as a tactic.. I'm trying to imagine Germany attempting to claim that the allies couldn't act against Germany as a whole because Hitler abolished elections. The argument you are making is, of course, ludicrous in the extreme. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Oct 12, 2024 18:01:37 GMT
Just broad brushing and ignoring the reality that very few current Gazans have ever had the chance to vote for an administration and none of them have in nearly 20 years. I'm not ignoring - it's factored into (a part of) my position. I'm explaining in political terms why it can make no odds. Political reality can't allow broken shit pits with no proper government to gain a form of collective immunity advantage from their failure. The only people who can be properly allowed to suffer from such a failure are those doing the failing - anything else will allow failure as a tactic.. I'm trying to imagine Germany attempting to claim that the allies couldn't act against Germany as a whole because Hitler abolished elections. The argument you are making is, of course, ludicrous in the extreme. But the allies didn't act against the whole of Germany, even Dresden was only necessary because of its huge manufacturing capacity and to this day its bombing is questioned. When the allies reached Germany they were very careful not to kill indiscriminately. Its called civilised |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Oct 12, 2024 18:04:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Oct 12, 2024 18:32:40 GMT
I'm not ignoring - it's factored into (a part of) my position. I'm explaining in political terms why it can make no odds. Political reality can't allow broken shit pits with no proper government to gain a form of collective immunity advantage from their failure. The only people who can be properly allowed to suffer from such a failure are those doing the failing - anything else will allow failure as a tactic.. I'm trying to imagine Germany attempting to claim that the allies couldn't act against Germany as a whole because Hitler abolished elections. The argument you are making is, of course, ludicrous in the extreme. But the allies didn't act against the whole of Germany, even Dresden was only necessary because of its huge manufacturing capacity and to this day its bombing is questioned. When the allies reached Germany they were very careful not to kill indiscriminately. Its called civilised My goodness, it's like you have gone cross eyed. To give you an idea of the level of 'care', the British employed a plan to flood an entire section of Germany by blowing up a dam - the US and British set German cities alight The US nuked two cities and , at that point, I don't think Japan had ever had an election. Any amount of care they took they made sure was no real pediment to the war they had to fight and win - ie this care would amount to , at most, not going out of their way to kill German civilians. Can you imagine an argument being presented in 1944-45 that the allies can't go into German territory itself to force surrender, because this move would necessarily involve large numbers of German civilian casualties and they don't have elections in Germany - and so, Germany must be left, with its Nazi government, intact and be allowed to build (say) missile weapons that it might say fire regularly at New York? This is how daft and lopsided your position really is. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Oct 12, 2024 18:53:09 GMT
But the allies didn't act against the whole of Germany, even Dresden was only necessary because of its huge manufacturing capacity and to this day its bombing is questioned. When the allies reached Germany they were very careful not to kill indiscriminately. Its called civilised My goodness, it's like you have gone cross eyed. To give you an idea of the level of 'care', the British employed a plan to flood an entire section of Germany by blowing up a dam - the US and British set German cities alight The US nuked two cities and , at that point, I don't think Japan had ever had an election. Any amount of care they took they made sure was no real pediment to the war they had to fight and win - ie this care would amount to , at most, not going out of their way to kill German civilians. Can you imagine an argument being presented in 1944-45 that the allies can't go into German territory itself to force surrender, because this move would necessarily involve large numbers of German civilian casualties and they don't have elections in Germany - and so, Germany must be left, with its Nazi government, intact and be allowed to build (say) missile weapons that it might say fire regularly at New York? This is how daft and lopsided your position really is. The dambusters was strategic, shooting innocent children isn't. The blowing of the dams was to break Germanies war machine and cost about 1,300 lives. Nearly every historian agrees the nuclear bombs ending Japans war quickly saved more lives than they cost. Please give me your access to similar thinking from the Israelis. Not to mention the inequality in fighting ability between Hamas and Germany/Japan. Then I will see your reasoning for why Israel needs such extreme measures. |
|
