Israel/Palestine Thread

That thesis is based on the presumption that Israel is in full control of all the territory i.e that Gaza is a part of Israel.

"Two primary groups live today in Israel and the OPT: Jewish Israelis and Palestinians. One primary sovereign, the Israeli government, rules over them."

As a result, from a different perspective, it also backs up the position that Israel is not committing any war crime under international law. According to Human Rights Watch then, as there is only one sovereign nation, there is no international conflict and the rules of war, and consequential accusations of war crimes do not apply.

To go back to North Korea, who I have used for illustrative purposes several times, it is not a war crime under international law for North Korea to starve or subjugate or bomb or kill its own citizens as there is no international aspect. Of course, there may well be human rights law issues, but they are different to the longstanding international conventions about war.

Which thesis do you hold to? Is it an internal conflict or an international one?

I never said that one war crime is a golden ticket to another. Strawman argument is a sign you've lost the plot.

When analysing any piece of research, go first to the underlying assumptions and if they are flawed or irrelevant, there is no need to go any further.

If someone is writing a paper on space travel and starts by assuming that the first law of thermodynamics does not apply, why would you waste your time reading the rest? On this piece, I got as far as the part where the document made clear that it viewed Israel as including the Palestinian territories (a false construct that it needed to get to its conclusion by the way) which had the secondary impact of rendering any conclusions on the rules of war as immaterial as the current conflict became internal rather than international.

If you don't understand my reasoning and logic, let me know and I will try and explain more clearly. If you do, attack the logic of the argument rather than how little time it took me to demonstrate the speciousness of the point.

I am not looking to the moral high ground, I am looking to the legal high ground.

I have ended several of my posts with the point that a legal defence of Israeli actions does not equate to a moral or other defence. Do I have to keep doing that?

Where am I demanding warm fuzzies for Israel to bomb civilians?

I keep telling you guys, if Hamas release the hostages, apologise for the actions of October 7th, and offer up those responsible for planning and committing those war crimes and atrocities to the ICC, then Israel has zero justification for its actions. Surely you don't want the hostages kept any longer and those responsible for the war crimes against Israel to go unpunished?

this must be Netanyahoo's Geo Bush junior's speech. don't know whether i should laugh or cry.