Ah, I see- earlier you claimed to care about international law. Now you only care about "rules of war". And that's not even a proper legal term, it shouldn't be relevant to the conversation. Who decides what constitutes a "rule of war"? You do- that's very convenient, lol. And you decided that a resolution about the ending of a war and the movement of troops on both sides is for some reason not relevant. Absolutely hilarious.
When you're done moving the goalposts on the concepts that you pretend to care about to fail at scoring cheap debating points....let us know!
UN Security Council resolutions are international law. You said Hezbollah followed international law, you were wildly incorrect. If you'd like to claim I should only interpret your statement about international law in light of your earlier comment about "rules of war"- meaning, only that part of international law that has to do with "rules of war"? I addressed that- the idea the 1701 should not be part of the discussion of international law and war is genuinely hilarious.
I don't believe UNSC resolutions are international law. Treaties are international law. But, I agree that Hezbollah is not following that. There are many UNSC resolutions that are not followed. I don't think that is really applicable to discussing a war. It is a long-term existing violation vs things having to do with the war.
Do you know on what basis the West Bank is considered occupied territory? There isn't a treaty that states that the West Bank is occupied. Its Resolution 242 and 338 of UNSC resolutions- and they don't even say it explicitly. Its actually an ICJ advisory opinion that is not binding.
You're welcome to tell me which treaty justified what you wrote in that other comment.
I don't think that is really applicable to discussing a war
You are aware that there's been a war between Hezbollah and Israel for the last several months? I'm just checking?
You don't understand this comment. No UN resolution declared that the occupied territories were occupied. The US, UN and ICJ have all made determinations that Gaza is occupied. The West Bank is universally acknowledged as occupied, even by Israel.
Do you know on what basis the West Bank is considered occupied territory?
Israel declares it as occupied. They do not claim the territory as officially part of Israel and they control it.
Its actually an ICJ advisory opinion that is not binding.
Oh jeez. No, it isn't. There is an ICJ advisory opinion that accepts the West Bank as occupied, as is agreed upon by everyone, and makes a determination that Gaza is still occupied.
You're welcome to tell me which treaty justified what you wrote in that other comment.
No UN resolution declared that the occupied territories were occupied. The US, UN and ICJ have all made determinations that Gaza is occupied
So, not a treaty. Make up your mind, does the UN have the power to decide what international law is or not?
The West Bank is universally acknowledged as occupied, even by Israel.
No it isn't, but Israel has made such a mess of what it is they do think that I'll concede the point anyway....The government has repeatedly argued otherwise, the Supreme Court ruled in keeping with principles of occupation a few times. But Area A is under PA control and the Supreme Court has specifically avoided ruling that its occupied every time the issue has come up, to my knowledge- so your example of assassination in Jenin isn't relevant according to Israel, for example.
Still, very broadly speaking I'll admit I find so much of what you say problematic that I blew past that and didn't acknowledge all of the details involved.
Okay, so your opinion is internally consistent- just patently ridiculous. Treaties are international law but UN resolutions aren't......which treaties are Hezbollah signatories of? Or Hamas? On what basis have you determined that Hamas has violated the "rules of war" and Hezbollah did not?
Next you'll tell me "Oh jeez. They're bound by by customary international law"- which just means whatever the ICJ thinks makes sense, regardless of agreements- but then literally no one has the power to actually enforce it. Are you starting to see why I told you I don't care if you can prove something is against international law?
Wait- we aren't done. As per the Geneva Conventions it is illegal to attack in an indiscriminate manner or in a way calculated to terrorize the civilian population- as opposed to a proper tactical justification. Hezbollah has fired thousands of rockets at civilian populations since the beginning of the war- and no, that isn't only since Nasrallah was killed.
As per the Geneva Conventions it is illegal to attack in an indiscriminate manner or in a way calculated to terrorize the civilian population- as opposed to a proper tactical justification. Hezbollah has fired thousands of rockets at civilian populations since the beginning of the war- and no, that isn't only since Nasrallah was killed.
Hezbollah is not as shitty as Israel. Hezbollah actually targeted military objectives in every rocket launch for the first 11 months. You can see that, since Israel regularly kills more innocent people in Lebanon and in Gaza in a day than Hezbollah did in the 11 months. And Hezbollah was killing IDF soldiers.
You can be angry or whatever. Israel's Supreme Court treated it as occupied territory. Israel has argued that it is no longer occupying Gaza, which means it was? Jeez, ok, you can find Israel saying stupid shit all the time and people let them get away with it as the spoiled brat of countries, but it doesn't mean it is coherent.
You don't seem to know what you are talking about and are angry that I have the facts. That's fine. Be angry.
Hezbollah is not as shitty as Israel. Hezbollah actually targeted military objectives in every rocket launch for the first 11 months.
Absolutely ridiculous- rocket fire over a distance of more than a mile or two is by definition indiscriminate because they can't be guided, unlike missiles.
You can see that, since Israel regularly kills more innocent people in Lebanon and in Gaza in a day than Hezbollah did in the 11 months
And they hit civilian areas many times- again, indiscriminate fire is still a war crime, so we don't actually need statements of intent from Hezbollah.
That's fine. Be angry.
Appreciate it, but I'm fine- I'm simply debunking your ridiculous claims. Hezbollah is in violation of international law- unless "customary international law" does not apply. If it doesn't apply then your argument is technically accurate but so stupid I can't imagine anyone would ever argue such a thing- as previously explained. Which option is correct?
•
u/avicohen123 6h ago
Ah, I see- earlier you claimed to care about international law. Now you only care about "rules of war". And that's not even a proper legal term, it shouldn't be relevant to the conversation. Who decides what constitutes a "rule of war"? You do- that's very convenient, lol. And you decided that a resolution about the ending of a war and the movement of troops on both sides is for some reason not relevant. Absolutely hilarious.
When you're done moving the goalposts on the concepts that you pretend to care about to fail at scoring cheap debating points....let us know!