Israel’s Genocide in Gaza | 2023- till present
- Thread starter Ali_Baba
- Start date
- Status
FOOLS_NIGHTMARE
Elite Member
FOOLS_NIGHTMARE
Elite Member
FOOLS_NIGHTMARE
Elite Member
FOOLS_NIGHTMARE
Elite Member
FOOLS_NIGHTMARE
Elite Member
FOOLS_NIGHTMARE
Elite Member
FOOLS_NIGHTMARE
Elite Member
FOOLS_NIGHTMARE
Elite Member
FOOLS_NIGHTMARE
Elite Member
FOOLS_NIGHTMARE
Elite Member
Musings
Administrator
Good day Solomon
Whether it’s Hamas or IDF - it doesn’t matter - it’s another horrific act. Violation of dead bodies in anyone’s eyes is vile.
This didn’t start on 7th Oct - I don’t wish to go off topic but the acts and violations of the Israelis over the last 70 years - killing innocent - creating an apartheid state - reported rape and stealing land and being an occupier has created this resistance - happened in WW2 in France. Was ok then wasn’t it?
Yes, it does matter: you were engaged in unjustly blackening Israelis and Jews by citing the 4th Geneva stuff. Now, what Hamas did was 4th Geneva villainy. How likely was it that the person peeing was a relative of a Hamas victim? I would guess, very likely indeed.
Even if you accept the UNGA-endorsed fiction that 2006-2023 Gaza was under Israeli "occupation", the answer is that what Hamas did was not "OK". This has been addressed previously in international law courts. One example from the 1948 Nuremburg trials:
"...For the purposes of this discussion, we accept the statement as true that the wars against Yugoslavia and Greece were in direct violation of the Kellogg-Briand Pact and were therefore criminal in character. But it does not follow that every act by the German occupation forces against person or property is a crime or that any and every act undertaken by the population of the occupied country against the German occupation forces thereby became legitimate defense...
"...international law makes no distinction between a lawful and an unlawful occupant in dealing with the respective duties of occupant and population in occupied territory. There is no reciprocal connection between the manner of the military occupation of territory and the rights and duties of the occupant and population to each other after the relationship has in fact been established. Whether the invasion was lawful or criminal is not an important factor..."
"...the greater portion of the partisan bands failed to comply with the rules of war entitling them tobe accorded the rights of a lawful belligerent. The evidence fails to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the incidents involved in the present case concern partisan troops having the status of lawful belligerents..."
"...We think the rule is established that a civilian who aids, abets, or participates in the fighting is liable to punishment as a war criminal under the laws of war. Fighting is legitimate only for the combatant personnel of a country. It is only this group that is entitled to treatment as prisoners of war and incurs no liability beyond detention after capture or. surrender..."
Unknowntruth
Trusted Member
Unknowntruth
Trusted Member
- Status
