“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.”
I’m pretty sure Israel really doesn’t care.
Right on.
So… uh, what are we actually going to do about it this time?
Anybody…?
More finger wagging or asking them to investigate themselves
Israel deserves criticism for indiscriminately bombing the general location where terrorists live, and accepting that civilian casualties are part of the deal, but then people continue to criticize a sophisticated and precision attack against the enemy combatants with an absolute minimum of civilian casualties. Seems like people think Israel has no right to defend itself at all, and makes you wonder if it’s just good old fashioned anti semitism.
Sure let’s ignore the whole in a country they aren’t at war with thing.
I don’t know what country you live in but if someone bombed my neighborhood to take out a single person people would be rightly outraged.
If I were Lebanon I’d be pretty annoyed, but they also aren’t really doing anything about the terrorists using their country as a base, so I also can’t blame Israel for taking matters into their own hands.
I can’t help but notice Israel isn’t doing anything about the illegal settlements, the settlers, or the settlers that keep murdering Palestinians while the IDF watches and on occasion helps.
Should Lebanon be cleared to kill civilians with explosives in illegal settlements?
Are the illegal settlements on land belonging to Lebanese citizens? What do they have to do with the settlements? Or are you saying that the terrorists living in Gaza are actually from Lebanon?
Yes. This is well documented.
https://unwatch.org/item-7/claim/claim-39-israel-illegally-occupies-syrian-and-lebanese-territory/
You’re either very dumb or very bad at reading, Israel has the settlements dumb dumb.
Does launching rockets at Israel violate international law?
Did the kids killed by rockets in a soccer field pose an imminent lethal threat?
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.
the hague
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.
It’s internationally illegal
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.
does not negate the prior agreement
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.
it mean they aren’t breaking international law
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’s clauses that allow most of those bodies to act directly against them now without reprocussion
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.
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.
