541–550 of 832 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Legal or not it makes me afraid of Israeli technology. I don't want to be part of their collateral damage.
Don't kill their citizens, don't launch rockets at them. Don't socialize with people that do.
Why is it inappropriate to be outraged that international humanitarian laws are actively being violated by Israel, in Gaza? Can someone help me understand?
Interestingly just nine days ago someone here shared a link to the US's Law of War manual for military personnel. It's pretty good for what it is. Since countries base this stuff on the same international treaties they've all signed, it's a guide to Israel's conduct during war (or just about anyone's) as well as the US's. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46147605 https://media.defense.gov/2023/Jul/31/2003271432/-…
[flagged]
I'd enter into a conversation like that assuming the other parties in the conversation were aware there was a war going on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have questions about the concept of legality in a war like the one between Hamas/Hezbollah and Israel. The idea that in a war there can be legal and illegal actions established by international treaties to protect civilians as much as possible can only work if two (or more) legitimate states are fighting each other, with leaders who can be held accountable for the orders they give. But does it still make sense to t…
The Nazis tried the same argument at the Nuremberg trials. They claimed that they weren't bound by the laws of war (e.g., Hague regulations) since Poland and other states hadn't signed them. The court dismissed the argument and stated that certain rules are binding whether both parties are signatories or not. In Israel's case it is even worse since indiscriminate attacks have been outlawed since basically forever. At…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Nazis tried the same argument at the Nuremberg trials. They claimed that they weren't bound by the laws of war (e.g., Hague regulations) since Poland and other states hadn't signed them. The court dismissed the argument and stated that certain rules are binding whether both parties are signatories or not. In Israel's case it is even worse since indiscriminate attacks have been outlawed since basically forever. At…
How is it an indiscriminate attack? It targeted Hezbollah operatives, not random Lebanese people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The northern settlements were largely evacuated and used by the IDF. The party to this conflict that systematically targets civilians is the state of Israel. One could make the argument that the US and Israel committing genocide makes paramilitary action against them legal, since the US controls the UN security council through their veto power. Right now Israel is an occupying power that systematically destroys civil…
"The northern settlements were largely evacuated and used by the IDF." This is a complete and utter lie. Hezbollah's missile attacks throughout 2024 led to the evacuation of over 60,000 Israeli residents from northern Israel. Try to imagine the US response to Mexico shooting that many missiles at a US city. "Israel is an occupying power" Israel isn't occupying Lebanon but Hezbollah is. " making it permissible to figh…
I still agree with e.g. HRW that Hezbollah did not do enough to protect civilians, but adjacent to the crimes of the IDF it's a rounding error.
IDF discplaced something like 1.5 million people in Lebanon, many of whom still aren't allowed to return to their homes and those that try are commonly murdered, and similarly those that try to repair their homes have their equipment destroyed or are killed. Recently Israel bombed a parking lot filled with bulldozers and excavators and the like, to halt reconstruction in Lebanon.
Claiming that one of the largest parties in lebanese politics "is an occupying power" is insane. Israel is building military facilities in Lebanon and controlling territory, as well as attacking both Beirut and the Beqaa valley every now and then in violation of the so called ceasefire agreement.
Courtney Bonneau has been reporting for a long time from the area, https://xcancel.com/cbonneauimages .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it an indiscriminate attack? It targeted Hezbollah operatives, not random Lebanese people.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule71
Interestingly just nine days ago someone here shared a link to the US's Law of War manual for military personnel. It's pretty good for what it is. Since countries base this stuff on the same international treaties they've all signed, it's a guide to Israel's conduct during war (or just about anyone's) as well as the US's. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46147605 https://media.defense.gov/2023/Jul/31/2003271432/-…
The Geneva convention doesn't apply to combatants in this case and you cannot be more targeted than this operation. You spoiler alter falls rather short on many accounts.
The truth is that the veneer of any international law is quite thin and you can pretty safely exist if you don't start aggression against another country. Any law that treats this differently isn't a law that serves justice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Nazis tried the same argument at the Nuremberg trials. They claimed that they weren't bound by the laws of war (e.g., Hague regulations) since Poland and other states hadn't signed them. The court dismissed the argument and stated that certain rules are binding whether both parties are signatories or not. In Israel's case it is even worse since indiscriminate attacks have been outlawed since basically forever. At…
How is it an indiscriminate attack? It targeted Hezbollah operatives, not random Lebanese people.