Any criticism of Israel is "anti-semitism" - the conquest of the west bank and continual colonization of that land violates many UN resolutions. The way they are conducting war violates UN and Geneva conventions. That's why they get sanctioned. It's not bias to enforce your charter. The world doesn't hate Israel. They just want Israel to stop taking land.
A large part of anti-semtisim is the belief that Jews can't be American or British or French or German. Similar to how some people believe Muslims can't be any of those things either.
Also I hate the state of Saudi Arabia. Doesn't mean I'm islamophobic. But like with anything else some people use justified hatred of Saudi Arabia to justify their hatred of Muslims(people like ATW) just like I'm sure some people(almost all right wing people) hide their anti-semtisim with their hatred of Israel but that is a small minority of hatredd of Israel. Most og anti-Semities want all the Jews out of their country and move to Israel.
The fact that you think Russia would vote for sending UN troops onto gaza shows how clueless you are. Russia entire MO is to drag America into Israeli war by itself and waste resources so they can deter those resources from being used in Ukraine. That's why Russia has been meeting HAMAS leaders even before the attack happened. You have no idea what you're talking about
Russia has proposed it before, and the PLO had welcomed it, it was Israel who rejected the idea. You don't know your history.
Very interesting. @glynch is an enormous Bernie fan and has been for many years. Bernie as (based on this quote and a bit of exaggeration) Warmonger Bernie won't go over well with him, in my opinion, although I'm pretty sure I agree with Bernie in this case.
Sigh. Dude you said a UN force to root out hamas in gaza. Show me where Russia has backed sending UN forces to root out hamas? Putin literally had numerous meetings with Hamas leadership leading up to the war. You think Russia would vote for removing them from power? Jesus christ
The peace process goes back decades, before Putin. And Russia currently proposed a humanitarian ceasefire which the US rejected.
“Whoever is against a Palestinian state should be for transferring the funds to Gaza, because maintaining a separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza helps prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state,” -The Jerusalem Post quoted Prime Minister Netanyahu as saying in 2019. Some of the best parts is that the money funneled to Gaza was done by Israeli officials. The money is wired to Israel who then sends it over to Gaza via suitcases. You can't make this **** up. Of course it ended up in the hands of Hamas. Hamas trained and dug a huge network of tunnels to smuggle and hide weapons even as Israel kept funneling Qatari money to Gaza and making it stronger. “This was a mistake of epic proportions,” political scientist Ian Bremmer said on X. “Hamas was and is a terrorist organization. With critical support from Iran, from Russia and, before October 7, from the Israeli PM. This helps explain why so many Israelis are united not just in destroying Hamas but also in removing Netanyahu from office,” adds Bremmer. https://www.indiatoday.in/world/sto...palestinian-state-gaza-war-2456157-2023-11-01
You're all over the place. You just said Israel wasted an opportunity after the Oct 7 attack to send in a UN peace keeping mission. Again I'm asking you where is the evidence that China or Russia would be willing to send UN troops to remove hamas. Show us this magical evidence bcz before the war the hamas leadership was meeting Putin in moscow and now you're claiming they would magically send in troops to remove hamas We're not talking about west bank. We're talking about removing hamas from leadership as they have no interest in peace
That is how proportionality is defined. The second is simply a restatement of the first. The international law says that military targets may be attacked and that civilian casualties must be avoided unless you are attacking a military target and the attack will provide a substantial military advantage. IHL Treaties - Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977. (icrc.org) In other words, if a location is being put to military use, it is a military objective. If can be destroyed if doing so offers a definite military advantage. This is why civilized people don't operate their military out of hospitals, because doing so subjects them to attack. In other words, you cannot use the civilian population as human shields and claim the protections of restrictions on attacking civilians. Military objectives may still be attacked. The very idea that you would protect the monsters using human shields from attack is gross. It would encourage the very thing these laws are meant to eliminate. The correct method of warfighting under international law is to separate the military from the civilians, so the perfectly legitimate attacks on the military do not endanger the civilians.
Hamas is literally bragging about having support from china/Russia and we have posters on these forums who somehow think they would be okay with the UN sending a force in gaza to remove hamas. Truly amazing what geopolitics does to one's mindset @Sweet Lou 4 2
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-51?activeTab=undefined This is the key part missing from your selective analysis: “(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.” It is a necessary but not sufficient condition that there is a clear military advantage/goal. Of course, it is a judgment call what is considered “excessive” in relation to the anticipated military advantage, but nevertheless it must be part of evaluation. There is, with good reason given the history, skepticism that this calculation is being done in good faith by IDF. Palestinian lives are not particularly valued by them. They are doing what is militarily necessary for them, given their resources. Yes, it is criminal. If they had more advanced defenses, perhaps they wouldn’t resort to such abominable tactics. Conducting war and killing thousands, but in a “civilized” manner, is a privilege advanced militaries can enjoy while assuming the moral high ground. This doesn’t sound right. The criminality of their use of human shields doesn’t erase responsibility from the other side to avoid killing of civilians. The rule against excessive civilian harm still applies. Quoting again from Geneva Convention additional protocols link: “Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57 .”
Doesn't Russia violate the law of war all the time? I'm kind of skeptical on the whole law of war paradigm, which I can see is a very complicated and developed rules-based system. I guess I'm just a simpleton when I throw my hands up and figure whoever wins makes the rules and justifications.
