Israel built a technologically advanced democracy in the desert; Hamas is a bunch of dangerous terrorists. Therefore, Israel is the bad guys. That's really what's going on here and how so many protestors for "justice" see this. Westernized country = bad guy.
@graphite Westernized countries tend to have the power to change things and are more likely to listen to Western people when we protest. What good would it do to protest Hamas? Hamas never even pretended to give a shit what average Americans think.
I’m not defending Hamas, they’re terrible, but I don’t want the Palestinians to get wiped out.
Hitler did it during WWII too. When he had something he didn't want bombed he would put allied prisoner's of war there, film it and send the film to the Allies.
But you're not really expecting people to take to the streets to protest a terrorist group, are you? Come on now. It doesn't work like that. What gets me though is that any kind of cease fire means capitulating to terrorists. That's not it. I think Israel bombing a refugee camp yesterday, killing between 50 and 400 innocent people, is what's fueling protests. Some like the black and white of war. Others see the gray. And they're not board with either side. They're on the side of innocent human beings being slaughtered. No matter where they live.
@flipper1966 People protest governments and laws. Things where their protests might actually move a needle. Protesting a terrorist group thousands of miles away over their twisted strategies doesn't allow for any change. And I think it's pretty safe to say that most every American stands against terrorist organizations. It's sort of a given. And I just don't see Hamas leadership bending for Americans on the streets with signs reading "Stop Hamas.'
@Ynotisay I hear you, but that's partly true though. After terrorist attacks, people have taken to the streets to reaffirm their values, and they can also put pressure on their governments to save Hamas' hostages. Only the families of hostages are being vocal here, they had to call WHO to ask for a little message of support, one week after the event. NGOs say nothing about the terrorist attack and the conditions of sick hostages. So there's more than pragmatism here, there's a political slant.
@BohemianBoo Earlier today, the Defence for Children International accused the United States of complicity with Israel's "crime of genocide." Does that make Joe Biden a war criminal? Maybe.
@flipper1966 It's complicated. Biden has been terrible on Palestine, no question. But he knows that if he were to cut funding to Israel, he'd probably lose reelection. Aside from the fact that Trump would be ten times worse for Palestine, Trump winning would also mean the end of democracy in America. Biden is in the single most difficult spot any president has ever been in. And that's not hyperbole, America has never been this close to becoming a dictatorship.
@Ynotisay True. But Gaza has non-member observer status at the UN and seeks full UN membership. Riyad Mansour is the Palestinian ambassador to the United Nations. Mansour has the official rank of Ambassador. Seems to me that gives some kind of UN jurisdiction over Gaza. Also, Palestine is recognized as a state by the UN. It's not just a territory.
Hamas is a terrorist organization. It's not like you can mail them a strongly worded protest letter. This would work about as well as "protesting" ISIS.
[quote]If the involuntary shields are civilians deserving of some protection, what obligations does the attacker continue to have regarding them? Professor Yoram Dinstein builds on Parks' work to answer the question. "[T]he principle of proportionality remains prevalent. However, even if that is the case, the actual test of excessive injury to civilians must be relaxed. That is to say, the appraisal whether civilian casualties are excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated must make allowances for the fact that if an attempt is made to shield military objectives with civilians civilian casualties will be higher than usual. His rationale is defensible: "A belligerent State is not vested by LOIAC [law of international armed conflict] with the power to block an otherwise legitimate attack against combatants (or military objectives) by deliberately placing civilians in harm's way."' Major General A.P.V. Rogers takes a similar approach when commenting on how a tribunal considering the practice might respond. In his opinion, it would be entitled to take all the circumstances into account and attach such weight as it considers proper to such matters as the defender's: ... deliberate use of civilians or civilian objects as a cover for military operations.., or... use of hostages or involuntary 'human shields'. It is submitted that the proportionality approach by tribunals should help to redress the balance [between the rights and duties of attackers and defenders] which otherwise would be tilted in favour of the unscrupulous."[/quote]
@BritishFailedAesthetic I'm using what's known as a reductio ad absurdum argument here. Obviously, we both know it would be fucked up to nuke the place. Why? Because it would cause tons of unnecessary civilian deaths and ruin the area for years to come. But that's the logical extreme to which we take the idea that the ends justify the means. If my actions cause lots of deaths of enemy soldiers, they must be good, regardless of how many innocents die.
@LordShadowfire Under some circumstances it is not a war crime to kill human shields. Depends on the specific facts. The resulting casualties are collateral damage.
@LordShadowfire [quote]In some circumstances, use of nuclear weapons could constitute a crime against humanity as defined in Article 7.
These provisions of the Rome Statute should also be viewed in light of the 1996 International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, which stated that “the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law”.[/quote]
Killing human shields in not necessarily a war crime.
