Hamas strike on Israel - mod warning in OP updated 19/10/23

Under international law, NATIONS have a right to self defence. There is no Palestinian nation, so the answer is no they have no such right.

(And, it should be pointed out that nations (or would be nations) also have obligations, one of which is prevent, or actively try to prevent, their territory from being used by illegal armed forces to attack the territory of other nations).

You could argue Israel doesn't have the right to self defense in land it has occupied.

As you said, NATIONS have a right to self defense against other NATIONS.

That’s incorrect. Under international law, nations have the right to self defence against other nations that attack them AND also against illegal organisations that operate from a territory (or nation) to attack them.

In other words, to take a domestic example, had an Irish terrorist organisation launched a comparable attack on the UK, it would be absolutely within the UK’s self-defence rights to attack Ireland if - in the UK’s opinion - our government wasn’t actively trying to prevent such attacks or had effectively lost control of part of our territory to such an organisation.

Not sure why you are mentioning Ireland and the UK in your example, that's 2 nations. Israel occupies Gaza, so the self defense clause is out the window.

The same way Russia cannot claim self defense in areas it occupies in Ukraine.

I guess it's to prevent hostile countries invading and occupying territories while using internation law to protect them and cover their crimes.

How many of those 139 countries that supposedly recognise Palestine actually recognise it is a nation? And how many are prepared to aid it militarily?

(I will leave aside your obvious antisemitic criticism of Israelis wearing the Star of David in a public protest particularly given the star is used by Israel every time it flies its flag)

If there's any war crime charges brought against Israel and they use the self defense argument, they very may well loose it, if it's proven they initially occupied Gaza.

This won't be some UN resolution with countries abstaining or vetoing on political lines, it would actually be a court in the Hague applying international law etc...

The alternative I prefer is Israel be more clinical in their response. Not bombing a refugee camp to kill a dozen Hamas fighters when those fighters are not an imminent threat to Israel. It's not like those fighters were loading a rocket to be fired at Israel, one which Israel can't defend against and not destroying it would have a high probability of causing more Israeli civilians to be killed.

Or bombing ambulances which they believed contained Hamas fighters. No immediate threat, these weren't SCUD launchers being erected and fueled and being ready to fire within minutes. So maybe don't bomb them outside a hospital and wait until they are away from it. You know, actually try limit civilian deaths.

Spain looks a certainty.

Ah yes, the 'antisemitism' card being played to ward off criticism of a rogue nation.

Sorry, that doesn't work any more. Israel revealed the intent of its current leadership this past week and unfortunately, there is undoubtedly Jewish people worldwide who are going to feel the effects of this. To me that is a true case of antisemitism, putting Jewish people at risk because of the action of carrying out genocidal acts on Palestinians.

I repeat my statement that those who wore it at a time when their fellow national representatives were talking about wiping Palestine off the map and were calling Palestinians human animals are a disgrace to their ancestors, particularly those who first said 'Never again'.

Not if they are Palestinian. 2000 or more Palestinians in the West Bank have been detained since October 7th afaik.

Saw a bit of it on tv. Great to see the hostages released, but by the looks on some of their faces, it was quite an ordeal.

What is your thoughts on an organisation that puts a command centre under a hospital and used the patients and staff of that hospital as human shields? It must be among the lowest of the low tactics, don't you agree?

Can you define 'current conflict'? Because looking back in September, Israel launched drones strikes in Gaza, so could Israel be the aggressor and Oct 7th was in retaliation to that? Or can we go back to August when Hamas fired rockets into Israel, but then that was in retaliation to Israeli airstrikes in July on Gaza..... and so on and on.

There's a world of difference between ongoing skirmishes and low-level conflict and full fledged war.

What Hamas did on Oct 7th in the ground assault, and the volume of rockets fired, dwarfs anything done previously for decades. Ditto for the Israeli response. It was a de-facto declaration of war.

In the same way Hezbollah firing rockets at Israel sporadically doesn't mean it's open war between Israel and Lebanon, or Israel and Hezzbollah for that matter.

Similar in Ukraine. Ukraine and Russia weren't in an actual state of war until 2022 despite obvious Russian involvement in the Donbass since 2014 and responsibility for a considerable number of Ukrainian casulties.

It is quite clear that a "new" and very distinct stage of the conflict began on October 7th and trying to muddy the waters around that isn't very helpful.

Every country has the right to self-defence surely.

Hmm...maybe that time that Hamas raided Israel and tortured, murdered, raped, burnt and beheaded indiscriminately and then took a load of civilians hostage? You can find the source in the videos and images they put out.