[wat0n]

@albionfagan Russia likely regards British support for Ukraine as provocation. Just yesterday or the day before it threatened to blockade the EU - bravado, yes, but a blockade is a military action.

[Pants-of-dog]

Shock and Awe is not against the Geneva convention. What Israel is doing is not against the international law if they are targeting military targets.

In 1977, Protocol I was adopted as an amendment to the Geneva Conventions, prohibiting the deliberate or indiscriminate attack of civilians and civilian objects, even if the area contained military objectives, and the attacking force must take precautions and steps to spare the lives of civilians and civilian objects as possible.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_ ... tional_law

[wat0n]

"As possible" being quite an important part of the whole thing. I already posted an example of how this is interpreted in practice.

[Pants-of-dog]

In practice, western powers do it all the time and go unpunished.

[wat0n]

Or maybe international law doesn't mean what you think it means.

[JohnRawls]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_bombardment_and_international_law

That is a vague interpretation that you are taking right now. Basically trying to suit your needs. Reality is that as long as the bombings or strikes are semi-proportional (reads as you don't kill 10 thousand civilians for 1 person while using unguided weapons or weapons of mass destruction) then it is more or less not a war crime if you were hitting a military target.

Notice the clear preamble here:
1) Attacks on military target
2) Guided weapons
3) Proportional

Israel can easily argue that it fulfilled all 3 of them. It will be impossible to prove that Israel attacked civilians with how Hamas is acting in Gaza and nobody would really believe Hamas in the first place. The long story short here, nobody is going to charge Israel with war crimes because it won't go anywhere and if the court doesn't find you guilty then you are not guilty.

[wat0n]

A war crimes trial over the settlements in the West Bank would be far more likely to succeed.

[JohnRawls]

A war crimes trial over the settlements in the West Bank would be far more likely to succeed.

Probably.

[Fasces]

if the court doesn't find you guilty then you are not guilty.

That is some faith in human institutions you got there

[JohnRawls]

That is some faith in human institutions you got there

Okay, what is your alternative? Opinion? Realistically speaking, it is either court, opinion or vigilante justice/rule without law.

Court is the best we got. If you don't like the law then advocate for change in it.

[Fasces]

I just live in some fantasy world where a court can you find you not guilty while you are, in fact, guilty.

And guilty when you are, in fact, not guilty, while we're at it.

Thank God the real world is different, eh?

[JohnRawls]

I just live in some fantasy world where a court can you find you not guilty while you are, in fact, guilty.

And guilty when you are, in fact, not guilty, while we're at it.

Thank God the real world is different, eh?

Court determines if you are guilty or not.

I mean, my opinion is that you are being a wanker a bit by posting this so you are a war criminal. Should I be able to decide if you are a war criminal or not with the punishment also being decided by my opinion? Or better leave it to specialists and laws?

[ingliz]

@JohnRawls

If it never reaches a court, the legal argument is moot.

Israel, like the US, is not a member of the ICC, so they are unlikely to recognise the court has jurisdiction to prosecute Israelis.

[Fasces]

No court punished the Ottomans for the Armenian genocide, so I guess it didn't happen.

[JohnRawls]

@JohnRawls

If it never reaches a court, the legal argument is moot.

Israel, like the US, is not a member of the ICC, so they are unlikely to recognise the court has jurisdiction to prosecute Israelis.

Ok they might not recognise it but they can be found guilty. Would be easier if PLO signs up to it.

[JohnRawls]

No court punished the Ottomans for the Armenian genocide, so I guess it didn't happen.

You are comparing to a time when the international system didn't exist yet in the form it does now. Shall we punish the Italians for what the Roman empire did?

[Pants-of-dog]

That is a vague interpretation that you are taking right now. Basically trying to suit your needs. Reality is that as long as the bombings or strikes are semi-proportional (reads as you don't kill 10 thousand civilians for 1 person while using unguided weapons or weapons of mass destruction) then it is more or less not a war crime if you were hitting a military target.

This is often the justification used by western powers to get themselves off the hook.

Note that this then makes the combined attacks on the WTC and Pentagon on 9/11 into a legitimate military attack, since the ratio of military targets killed is not outside the bounds of these other attacks and used a steerable attack system.

Notice the clear preamble here:
1) Attacks on military target
2) Guided weapons
3) Proportional

Israel can easily argue that it fulfilled all 3 of them. It will be impossible to prove that Israel attacked civilians with how Hamas is acting in Gaza and nobody would really believe Hamas in the first place. The long story short here, nobody is going to charge Israel with war crimes because it won't go anywhere and if the court doesn't find you guilty then you are not guilty.

1. Israel is bombing northern Gaza. How is all of northern Gaza a military target?

2. @wat0n already provided an article describing how the use of guided weapons has not resulted in less destruction or less collateral damage.

3. What is the current proportion of Palestinian deaths that are civilians? What is the allowed limit?

[Fasces]

You are comparing to a time when the international system didn't exist yet in the form it does now. Shall we punish the Italians for what the Roman empire did?

The line of logic you're following here leads to the understanding that as Israel doesn't recognize the court and thus the court can never find Israel guilty, Israel's actions can never be war crimes.

A court doesn't magically make an act. A man can commit murder without being convicted of murder or even being acquitted of murder. The murder still happened. The victim is still dead. The court saying whether the man did the murder or not is independent of the man being a murderer, of being guilty of having murdered.

No court has punished Julius Caeser for the Celtic Holocaust. It still happened. The people were still killed. The same applies to any person or state.

Reality is that as long as the bombings or strikes are semi-proportional (reads as you don't kill 10 thousand civilians for 1 person while using unguided weapons or weapons of mass destruction) then it is more or less not a war crime if you were hitting a military target.

An answer that gets closer to the fundamental truth of the Western led order is "what makes a particular strike a war crime or not is the identity of the perpetrator. our allies? Not a war crime. Our enemies? War crime."

[Fasces]

3) Proportional

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine

[Rich]

You are comparing to a time when the international system didn't exist yet in the form it does now. Shall we punish the Italians for what the Roman empire did?

Should the Italians have been punished for what they did in Ethiopia and World War II.? They weren't punished because the Liberals didn't want them punished. The international system still doesn't exist in the form that the international liberal lie machine pretends it exists. I don't doubt that all the highly paid lawyers at the Haig believe in it. I don't doubt that they've convinced themselves that they're bullshit system is actually doing good.

The rule of the law is a highly complex thing, but generally the principles associated with it are good. The rule of law in western countries, while retaining plenty of room for improvement is basically the right way to go. But trying to apply the rule of law to the international system is absurd, utterly absurd and should be treated with total and utter contempt.

Even the UN can be a good thing, as long as it is treated as a diplomatic body not some phony legislative or judicial body.