Hamas invaded Israel 2023

[Halifax Tar]

A little levity lol

 

[FJAG]

It does matter if Israel wants to continue to maintain the degree of international support it has. This is customary international law whether someone signs it or not - hence why we drag rogue Rwanadans and Serbians to The Hague to account for their actions.

Israel and Palestine did sign on to Convention II (with reservations for Israel).

In 2014 Palestine also signed on to Convention IV (Protection to Civilian persons in Time of War) and the Protocols - So if anyone wants to play the war crimes card as to the deliberate targeting of the civilian population ...

 

[Infanteer]

Serbians and Rwandans, as far as I'm aware, were tried for crimes against humanity, not mere transgressions in otherwise regular warfare.

A fair portion of those charged for genocide and crimes against humanity in Rwanda and the Former Yugoslavia were also charged with war crimes/violations of the Geneva Conventions.

The ICRC does not identify Article 41 AP1 GC as part of customary international law. One should not assume that the entirety of widely-ratified treaties automatically constitute customary intl law.

It does recognize Articles 8 and 10, however. But the historical and operational context provided by @FJAG and @Booter tend to show 1) those articles weren't meant to protect amphibious assaulters not manifestly imperiled and 2) Israel does engage in some amount of diligence in this regard.

At any rate, I do think your operationalization of those concepts is quite reasonable.

It is part of the International Law of Armed Conflict. Feel free to split hairs at a war crimes trial, or more importantly, in the court of public opinion.

 

[TacticalTea]

It is part of the International Law of Armed Conflict. Feel free to split hairs at a war crimes trial, or more importantly, in the court of public opinion.

The applicability of a given legal norm is indeed one of the very first things one would argue in Court, right after the competence of said Court.

In the court of public opinion, I think most people would agree that baby-killing terrorists are animals that ought to be permanently disposed of by whatever means available.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The applicability of a given legal norm is indeed one of the very first things one would argue in Court, right after the competence of said Court.

In the court of public opinion, I think most people would agree that baby-killing terrorists are animals that ought to be permanently disposed of by whatever means available.

There is not moral equivalency in this. They (Hamas) opened Pandora's box. And Israel has been telling the people of Gaza to flee.

If they can't or won't... Thems the breaks as far as I'm concerned.

Next time don't let Hama hide amongst you. This could all be over if Hamas just threw down their arms and surrendered unconditionally.

 

[KevinB]

According to Article 45, no. Once you take part in armed hostilities, you are considered a lawful combatant unless a tribunal strips you of that status.

Spies, saboteurs etc…
Pretty sure there is some literature on those not having protections

One generally doesn’t consider terrorists lawful combatants, and hollow point etc ammunition may be used against them.

 

[Infanteer]

Spies, saboteurs etc…
Pretty sure there is some literature on those not having protections

One generally doesn’t consider terrorists lawful combatants, and hollow point etc ammunition may be used against them.

Nope. Third Geneva Convention, Article 4(A)(2) lays out that the following are considered lawful combatants and thus subject to such status under the the International Law of Armed Conflict.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; and (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Now, Hamas fits the bill of an organized resistance movement. It also fails to fulfil the conditions of this section, especially (d). Veering into law, I suspect Israel could argue that since Hamas failed to meet the Third Geneva Convention requirements, its fighters are subject to criminal prosecution as terrorists.

That being said, the custom is to treat enemy combatants as lawful combatants even if they breach the law of armed conflict - barbarity on the other side does not justify reprisals.

On another note, there is a legitimate argument to make that these Hamas fighters are not terrorists, but rather irregular combatants fighting for a organized proto-state (Gaza). Terrorism, narrowly defined, is (1) an act of violence; (2) targeting civilians; (3) politically motivated; (4) designed to influence policy through terror; and (5) committed by a non-state organization. Hamas' actions last week definitely hit the first 4, but being that they represent a Gazan city state, they are not strictly non-state actors.

This definition is useful as it helps separate "terrorists" from "state sponsors of terrorism" and "states that conduct war crimes or crimes against humanity" (three different buckets in the shitty humanity bin). The SS committed heinous acts just as evil as what we saw last week, and they are not terrorists. Many of them swung from the gallows for their crimes.

If one accepts this, Hamas are culpable of war crimes, rather than terrorism, and should be hunted down as the war criminals they are.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Most of the attention is going to be on Israel now. All the usual apologists were wrong-footed by the scope and scale of Hamas's atrocities, but they'll recover. I see that the "40 babies beheaded" story is being energetically fact-checked - it probably wasn't 40, they probably weren't all (if any) beheaded, etc.

The cost of conducting operations within the spirit as well as letter of the law is a lot less than the cost of not doing so. Nothing wrong with conducting operations that leave only small likelihood for combatants to survive to stand trial, though.

 

[Kirkhill]

Some of the attempts to take the heat off of Hamas are coming from interesting sources.

UK could be legally complicit in Gaza war crimes, senior Tory MP warns Rishi Sunak

Ex-foreign affairs committee chair Crispin Blunt says UK’s ‘unqualified support’ puts Britain in ‘legal peril’

www.independent.co.uk

Crispin Blunt, a former chair of parliament’s foreign affairs committee, has written to Rishi Sunak warning the UK is in “legal peril” on account of his “apparent unqualified support to the policy of the government of Israel”.

The International Centre of Justice for Palestinians, which Mr Blunt co-chairs, has issued a notice of intention to prosecute UK officials and says there is “clear evidence that Israel has committed war crimes”.

Mr Blunt is the second prominent Tory MP to raise the alarm over the issue after Alicia Kearns, the current chair of the foreign affairs committee, said the UK should be “tough with our friends”.

“International law cannot be switched on and off and there are laws around proportionality,” she told the News Agents podcast, stressing that the country had a right to defend itself, but within international rules.

The UK establishment has long had an Arabist element in its ranks.

Although the Conservatives had the first Jewish Prime Minister with Disraeli Zionism was largely seen as associated with anti-establishment non-conformist protestants, the same people that gave us "Jerusalem" and the Labour Party. It was a nationalist party of socialists that had fought hard against internal disruptions by internationalists and communists.

As the world turns...

Christian Zionism in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The British Labour Party and Zionism

Labour was to be the midwife of the Zionist state.

www.revolutionarycommunist.org

 

[BrianWL]

Part of the problem is language. Take Isreali "settlers" ....that puts the image of wagons and people moving the Indians out in the western mind. In Israel it is closer to developers in Mississauga building houses and condos having problems with the land titles. And there are problems with every land title there. The Settlers are not pushing out anyone they were gone 75 years ago.

hm. not from what I have seen in East Jerusalem. Palestinians forced out of their homes by Israelis. Land title part is accurate but a fixed game - Palestinians can't get building permits so they just build - or the Israelis contest the land title handed out 200 years ago......and when the Israelis want the property the Palestinian occupants will get the boot.

Meanwhile…

Pro-Palestine rally held in downtown Ottawa as mayor condemns Hamas attack on Israel

Mark Sutcliffe posted to social media to say he's spoken with leaders on Ottawa's Jewish community to offer support and express his "shock and condemnation" of the attack. Meanwhile, pro-Palestine demonstrators marched downtown.

ottawa.ctvnews.ca

Pro Palestinian protest/rally planned…

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

So your telling me that Hamas is a peer to peer force with the IDF?

Limited means they do not have the same capabilities of their opponent. The Viet Cong were limited in equipment in comparison to the US. The Afghanis were limited in their equipment in comparison to the West.

Just because they had some rockets and managed to coordinate a attack doesn’t mean they are anywhere near the same playing field as their opponent. The IDF has the capability to wipe them out with very minimal casualties on their side all things considered.

The occasional ‘bad Israel please stop’ from the UN means nothing. The South Africa treatment would do a lot to getting them to change their actions.


You are severely misinformed on what the ‘settlers’ are doing. They are actively driving people from their homes and bulldozing them. If the Palestinians resist in any way the IDF steps in or the settlers themselves kill them.

In particular it has ramped up drastically recently with the re-election of Netanyahu.

And for the record I am mostly pro-Israel, I just don’t give them a blank cheque for their misdeeds.

the other classic settler problem is they pick an unoccupied hilltop in the West Bank. as the settlement grows, it ends up butting up against a Palestinian community. then the bricks and bullets start flying. and then the Israelis start posturing to have the Palestinian property razed for security issues.

A very convoluted and violent start to the (re)creation of Israel. As Jewish individuals (and shadow government) conducted terrorist activities against the British who were administrating the area.

Hindsight being 20/20, when Israeli was created the Sinai Peninsula probably should have been given to Palestine.

interesting concept. from what I have read and discussed with Palestinians, they were offered a share of the land in Palestine. and the Jews would get a piece. They did not ever agree to share anything with the returning Jews. Not sure if the Sinai was offered up and I believe pre 1948, that was Egypt. and still is.........with the Israelis holding it for periods of time....

 

[KevinB]

hm. not from what I have seen in East Jerusalem. Palestinians forced out of their homes by Israelis. Land title part is accurate but a fixed game - Palestinians can't get building permits so they just build - or the Israelis contest the land title handed out 200 years ago......and when the Israelis want the property the Palestinian occupants will get the boot.



the other classic settler problem is they pick an unoccupied hilltop in the West Bank. as the settlement grows, it ends up butting up against a Palestinian community. then the bricks and bullets start flying. and then the Israelis start posturing to have the Palestinian property razed for security issues.

interesting concept. from what I have read and discussed with Palestinians, they were offered a share of the land in Palestine. and the Jews would get a piece. They did not ever agree to share anything with the returning Jews. Not sure if the Sinai was offered up and I believe pre 1948, that was Egypt. and still is.........with the Israelis holding it for periods of time....

Yeah the 2 state option never made a lot of sense when you looked at the land, and the fact the Palestinians didn’t accept Israel as an entity period.

The Sinai to Palestine I threw out due to the fact it’s loss wouldn’t have been a major issue for Egypt (at the time the British had control of the canal, and it’s population was low) and would have allowed the UK to continue control without Egypt having it as a ‘National’ waterway.

Ah the glorious ability of hindsight

 

[Blackadder1916]

Israel and Palestine did sign on to Convention II (with reservations for Israel).

In 2014 Palestine also signed on to Convention IV (Protection to Civilian persons in Time of War) and the Protocols - So if anyone wants to play the war crimes card as to the deliberate targeting of the civilian population ...

But which "Palestine" signed on to the Convention? Did "Palestine" attack Israel or did "Hamas"? Has Israel declared war on Palestine or Hamas? Does any of this matter? Israel will hunt down and kill those responsible for the attacks in their country. They will destroy most of the infrastructure in Gaza and force a wave of refugees, if not out of the strip, then to a concentration in the south. Playing the war crimes card will make no difference to Israel determined to wreck personal vengeance on Hamas (leadership as well as rank and file). The wider international justice apparatus won't get their hands on any Hamas and any Israelis accused of wrong doing will likewise be shielded.

 

[BrianWL]

Yeah the 2 state option never made a lot of sense when you looked at the land, and the fact the Palestinians didn’t accept Israel as an entity period.

The Sinai to Palestine I threw out due to the fact it’s loss wouldn’t have been a major issue for Egypt (at the time the British had control of the canal, and it’s population was low) and would have allowed the UK to continue control without Egypt having it as a ‘National’ waterway.

Ah the glorious ability of hindsight

baha! its a magic power. i really don't know of any way out of both sides having at each other. the sidebar of fear will be other Arab countries and the USA hopping into the fight.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Battle prep...

 

[McG]

Good.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1713894338206245120

 

[NavyShooter]

Sounds like the responsible thing to do!

 

[Halifax Tar]

Good.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1713894338206245120

Aint that something...

 

[lenaitch]

From my understanding there is a broadcast they make giving instructions to the people in the water on what they are supposed to do. If they don’t they haven’t ceased hostilities.

If they are treading water, one hopes the instruction isn't 'hands up' (unless they are very fit).

 

[armyvern]

Iran warns of ‘pre-emptive action’ as Gaza ground assault looms – as it happened

This blog is low closed. The latest live updates are here.

www.theguardian.com

Iran’s foreign minister, Hossein Amirabdollahian, warned that a “preemptive action” against Israel could be expected “in the coming hours”, signalling a potential escalation in the conflict.

In a live broadcast to state television, Amirabdollahian said “the leaders of resistance groups will not allow the Zionist regime to act in any way it likes in Gaza” while referencing his meeting with the head of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, on Saturday.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Iran warns of ‘pre-emptive action’ as Gaza ground assault looms – as it happened

This blog is low closed. The latest live updates are here.

www.theguardian.com