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

It must be right even the US used self defense as a reason for attacking Syria the other week for attacks on the bases in Syria that they are illegally occupying. Rules for thee but not for me.

No the two state solution proposed at camp David decades ago.

Your suggestion is fantasy and defeatism. Nothing else to discuss. Good that's clarified.

Your own link disproves your point. The UN have said Hamas IS committing war crimes while Israel MAY be committing war crimes, this is from your own link yet you turn around and say that the UN have to say may!!! Comical Ali territory as I said before, where you are walking back on things you already wrote in stone.

As for Article 19, and protecting hospitals, you are completely missing the point. Here is the full text:

"Fixed establishments and mobile medical units of the Medical Service may in no circumstances be attacked, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict. Should they fall into the hands of the adverse Party, their personnel shall be free to pursue their duties, as long as the capturing Power has not itself ensured the necessary care of the wounded and sick found in such establishments and units.

The responsible authorities shall ensure that the said medical establishments and units are, as far as possible, situated in such a manner that attacks against military objectives cannot imperil their safety."

The second paragraph is key to consideration. This must be read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court which defines war crimes (and I have linked to many times before):

1. "Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives;

When you read the two provisions together, it is clear that where a hospital is being used as a military HQ, or the military HQ is in a tunnel under the hospital, the "responsible authorities", in this case Hamas, have failed in their Geneva Convention obligations to protect the hospital as they have imperiled the safety of the hospital, and as set out in the ICC Statutes, it is not a war crime to attack the hospital. Similar provisions apply to refugee camps.

Think about it, if this weren't so, and you were correct, all the Ukrainians needed to do to stop the Russian invasion was to set up mobile hospitals across the main roads and the Russian tanks wouldn't have been able to roll over them. The Ukrainians didn't do that, because they were mindful of their obligations under Article 19 not to put hospitals into danger. Hamas, well, they don't care about anyone, not even their own people, in their mad bloodrush to eliminate all the Jews.

Now, similar discussions can be held about all the other points you raised, some of them complete red herrings, but I will only get further personal insults if I demolish your position any further.

Finally, a reminder once again, demonstrating that Israel are not in breach of international law and not committing war crimes, does not amount to a moral endorsement of their actions, merely showing that the hyperbole generated on here and on Irish media is inaccurate and misplaced.

Sure, let's just kill 1000's of innocents instead.

And in a couple months we can revert to talking about how the Israeli intelligence bodies, special forces and military are the best trained, most equipped and most capable on the planet.

Shameful dismissal of a less homicidal path forward and invalidates any concern expressed for the victims of Oct 7th.

Israel are not letting anyone supply anything.

In fact, they have hit the Rafah crossing, (where aid has been building up) with missiles many times now.

Why don't you respond to each of the Ruth FitzGerald's points and tell her where she is wrong. I laid them out twice for you. Go on, show us where she is wrong and stop muddying the waters. She quoted each article and gave her opinion. Show where she is wrong. Even the red herrings 😉

Here is Ruth's CV by the way.

Law Library | Ruth A FitzGerald SC

Specialises in International Criminal Law and Human Rights.

Oh and Amnesty, Human Rights, International Red Cross are wrong too? You never responded to those lines.

Diminish away please. Excuse merchant. Show us where she is wrong.

Ruth FitzGerald SC: International humanitarian law in the conflict between Israel and Hamas | Irish Legal News

Law Library | International humanitarian law | Applied to the conflict between Israel and Hamas.

I already explained how and why she is wrong on Article 19, I have also explained how much of her analysis rests on the definition of Occupying Power which is disputed.

As for the lobby groups, they are lobby groups, anything they say should be taken with a grain of salt. There isn't a single government or country in the world that Amnesty approve of.

Please take your time to critique everything and prove all the breaches of international law are in her head. There are many of them listed.

Please prove that she is wrong on every heading. You attempted one so far.

Ruth FitzGerald SC: International humanitarian law in the conflict between Israel and Hamas | Irish Legal News

I will be back at 3pm, so do take your time. There are several headings to cover.

No idea where you've taken that from my post. I was ridiculing the comparison between South Korea, where our Taoiseach is currently on a trade mission, and the Gaza Strip.

North Korea does not prevent any ships from docking in south Korea, so it's absolutely nothing in comparison.

No point discussing the Rafah crossing again, it's been bombed over 4 times by Israel when Egypt was looking to allow aid through.

I might have missed it but did someone say the elimination of the state of Israel? I've been v clear on my stance of a recognition of a the two state solution by all parties pertaining to the 1967 border. And I would say nearly all have stated that too. Open to correction...

New law to be brought in.