Israel’s Genocide in Gaza | 2023- till present

[Persian Gulf]

So I guess the clear and simple answer is that there is no requirement for a "balanced" response by popular judgement, and that every party to a conflict has a duty to fight as best as it can with all available resources.

Every party must adhere to the rules of international law, including the rules on international humanitarian law. A key concept under both is proportionality. No one in their right mind can think Israel's response is proportionate and conducted in a way to minimise collateral damage, Israel themselves have admitted this (proudly) on many occasions

 

[VCheng]

Every party must adhere to the rules of international law, including the rules on international humanitarian law. A key concept under both is proportionality.

A source please, if you will. I would like to read up more on this aspect.

 

[RescueRanger]

@VCheng you make a valid point, and in many ways @r3alist is also expressing an opinion that resonates with many in this thread judging by the replies. So where does this leave us? as I mentioned to you some time ago, this thread is now more about catharsis than anything else for most.

 

[r3alist]

A source please, if you will. I would like to read up more on this aspect.

Are you kidding me, all this time you posing empty questions?

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule14#:~:text=armed%20conflictsInterpretation-,Rule%2014.,military%20advantage%20anticipated%2C%20is%20prohibited.

 

[Peregrine]

So I guess the clear and simple answer is that there is no requirement for a "balanced" response by popular judgement, and that every party to a conflict has a duty to fight as best as it can with all available resources.

I am just stating a reality too.

Its the rule of jungle yes.
But then why should the world care for 6 million who died in concentration camps in Europe. Why so much fuzz in the media and hollywood about that event? I mean, they just lost a fight…right?

Not only that, is it that a justification for creation of Israel?

 

[Antonius123]

The oppression and apartheid, is a result of the occupation and apartheid that Israel has forced upon millions of Palestinians

Israel controls all the air space space space and borders of Palestine

Their are more then 7 million Arabs under Israeli occupation or control, that's more then the Jews in the region and it's only growing as Palestinian population increases



That demographic advantage Palestinians have is the biggest weapon against Israel

Keeping that much people living under occupation is not sustainable


That's why stopping good relations with the Arab and Muslim world is essential for the future


The Jews are detested at the moment and we need to take advantage of that

The 7 millions arab that you mentioned above is not Israel's citizen, so please stop lying.

73% of Israel population are jews, 27% are arab, you can check it by yourself.

If Israel treat arab Palestine differently because they are not Israel's citizen then it is Israel's right, and if they control the border because they have valid reason to do that: that is because Palestinian never stop their intention to wage war against Israel as you have mentioned many times above, because it is already their obsession.

 

[VCheng]

Are you kidding me, all this time you posing empty questions?

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule14#:~:text=armed%20conflictsInterpretation-,Rule%2014.,military%20advantage%20anticipated%2C%20is%20prohibited.

No. The issue here would be to the applicability of that law, given the nature of the combatants. Are both sides valid signatories to the applicable conventions, for example.

 

[VCheng]

@VCheng you make a valid point, and in many ways @r3alist is also expressing an opinion that resonates with many in this thread judging by the replies. So where does this leave us? as I mentioned to you some time ago, this thread is now more about catharsis than anything else for most.

Catharsis? Sure. Mass hysteria? No.

But that is no longer up to me. I am just a member out here.

 

[VCheng]

Its the rule of jungle yes.
But then why should the world care for 6 million who died in concentration camps in Europe. Why so much fuzz in the media and hollywood about that event? I mean, they just lost a fight…right?

Not only that, is it that a justification for creation of Israel?

True, and it only supports what I say always: There is no morality in international geopolitics.. Never has been, never will be.

 

[Antonius123]

It doesn't matter what Israel prefers. Even if they want to build a paradise it isn't right. They don't belong there. This is Palestinian land from the very beginning.

The problem with your/their claim is that: it is delusional.

First: which beginning are you referring? 1947? 1914? 1850? 70 CE? 1000 BCE? 1500 BCE? 2000 BCE?
Israel can claim the same, and their ground is much stronger than yours because their ancestor has been there long time ago far before arab migrated to Palestinian during Rasidun Chalipate and Ottoman empire occupation.

Second: you are talking about the past which is no longer relevant in current situation. It is true that 150 years ago Palestinian land belong to Ottoman when arab was majority and you consider arab Palestinian have greater privillage than jews and they should decide the fate of the land and country, but the situation is much much different now, Palestinian land where Israel stand on consist of 73% jews who wants Israel government rather than Palestinian government/hamas to rule over them. Obviously you have no ground to claim that land belong to Palestinian anymore currently.

Third: who in this earth who has hearth will support your aspiration to get rid of Israel in order to make Palestine free from river to the sea - which is genocide/ethnic cleansing in nature,? Even Russia and China will not help you to realize that aspiration because it will a disaster for humanity.

 

[r3alist]

No. The issue here would be to the applicability of that law, given the nature of the combatants. Are both sides valid signatories to the applicable conventions, for example.

You were questioning before whether the principle existed and asked for a source, which was provided to demonstrate the principle.

A question around applicability is a different one and is changing the goal posts. I am not indulging this downward spiral, first it doesn't exist, now it doesn't apply.

 

[VCheng]

You were questioning before whether the principle existed and asked for a source, which was provided to demonstrate the principle.

A question around applicability is a different one and is changing the goal posts. I am not indulging this downward spiral, first it doesn't exist, now it doesn't apply.

If the principle does not apply, it is not much of a principle relevant to the situation, is it? Then why should people get all riled up based upon an incomplete or incorrect understanding of the applicable law?

Saner voices need to prevail here, not mass hysteria.

 

[Antonius123]

The Israelis are not native to this land. The Palestinians are natives of this land. All reasonable human beings don't dispute this fact.

Israel exist thousand years before arab migrated massively to Palestine land during Rashidun Caliphate and Ottoman Empire occupation.

There were Israel/Samaria and Judea Kingdom 2000 years ago, but there had never been Palestine Kingdom ever existed there throughout history.

 

[RescueRanger]

Israel exist thousand years before arab migrated massively to Palestine land during Rashidun Caliphate and Ottoman Empire occupation.

There were Israel/Samaria and Judea Kingdom 2000 years ago, but there had never been Palestine Kingdom ever existed there throughout history.

I think what @Dalit is referring to and I do agree [personal opinion] here is that the present day Israeli's who live in modern day Israel are not native to that part of the world. Besides I think almost everyone here knows the concept of Aliyah.

 

[r3alist]

If the principle does not apply, it is not much of a principle relevant to the situation, is it? Then why should people get all riled up based upon an incomplete or incorrect understanding of the applicable law?

Saner voices need to prevail here, not mass hysteria.

A sane voice would do a quick check and realise Israel is a signatory.

So you doubted the existence of the principle, questioned its applicability then questioned the signatory to it.

Is Israel violating the laws of war meant to protect children?

As Israel's bombing of the Gaza Strip continues and people flee south, international laws will be tested, experts say.

www.aljazeera.com

The protection of children is a very sane thing to do.