this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024
73 points (97.4% liked)

World News

38936 readers
1805 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres arrived at the BRICS summit in the Russian city of Kazan on Oct. 22, despite criticism from Ukraine, Voice of America reported.

The BRICS group, a bloc of countries that includes Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the United Arab Emirates, is convening in Kazan for a three-day summit from Oct. 22-24. According to Moscow, 36 world leaders are participating in the conference.

Guterres is expected to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the event on Oct. 24, according to Russian presidential aide Yuri Ushakov.

Ukraine's Foreign Ministry criticized the U.N. secretary general's visit.

MBFC
Archive

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DarthJon@lemmy.world -1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Says international law. https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/proportionality#:~:text=The%20principle%20of%20proportionality%20prohibits,and%20direct%20military%20advantage%20anticipated%E2%80%9D.

Hamas wants to make a deal if they can get what they want out of it. That's the whole reason they took hostages. Terrorists who take hostages shouldn't get what they want.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, I can read the definition as well as you can. What you're proposing is an interpretation of "military advantage" - one which would let any number of bad guys from history off the hook. Oh, and also Hamas - Oct 7 advanced their goals quite well, as you've pointed out with the hostages.

[–] DarthJon@lemmy.world -1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

That's because we're discussing the definition of proportionality outside the broader context of the laws of warfare. It is a principle applied to specific strikes within the context of military action that is justified under international law. So no, it doesn't just license a group like Hamas to do what they did on the grounds that it helped them achieve their goals.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

It is a principle applied to specific strikes within the context of military action that is justified under international law.

Okay, who says that. That's an incredibly narrow context, I'm not even sure what "strikes" would mean here - since it's usually applied to a tactical context that's way below the granularity of any military treaty I've ever seen.

[–] DarthJon@lemmy.world -2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Oh come on, there are well-established doctrines of internal law related to war - you know, the same "international law" that anti-Zionists love to accuse Israel of violating all the time.

'Strike' is the word I chose and may not be the word that actually appears in the documents that outline international law on the matter, but you get the point. This is a silly discussion.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

I assure you, I don't know what exact rules you mean, and suspect they don't exist. (No shade on you, though)

As far as I know, proportionality is vague, but applies on every scale, in every situation. The actual lawyers for Israel have argued that their overall response has been proportional. (Because Hamas is hiding in the Gaza strip, and so it's all a legitimate target to vapourise. By that standard, they're right, and they've actually been generous, but it's a dumb standard)

[–] DarthJon@lemmy.world -2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Have you heard of the Geneva Conventions? How can you accuse Israel of waging war that is disproportionate and then turn around and say it's a vague term and international laws of war don't exist?

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Vague insofar as it's totally left to courts and individuals to interpret what the exact threshold of disproportional is. That's why there's a cottage industry in dissecting the ethics of every individual thing the US did in it's recent wars. Damage and casualties are extremely lopsided here, though, even if you argue the lopsidedness is justified somehow.

I was trying to include the nuances to be fair to you, but apparently that was just confusing.

Have you heard of the Geneva Conventions?

The main mention is Article 57, called Precautions in Attack, and it has this nice little section:

  1. No provision of this Article may be construed as authorizing any attacks against the civilian population, civilians or civilian objects.

From a Westpoint academy article I just stumbled on, on proportionality:

The rule of proportionality requires that the anticipated incidental loss of human life and damage to civilian objects should not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected from the destruction of a military objective.

The military objective here being a few Hamas fighters sprinkled around, and civilians and civilian objects being all of Gaza. I'm now pretty certain there isn't a loophole based on what you're doing or thinking at the time, like you seem to be suggesting.

[–] DarthJon@lemmy.world -2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You can't cherry-pick one statement out of Article 57 and ignore everything else. Read the entire section. The whole point is to prohibit intentional attacks on civilians but to provide justification for attacks that harm civilians. Even attacks directly on civilians are justified under international law if those civilians are directly involved in hostilities. Here's a brief article that summarizes these concepts: https://hhi.harvard.edu/files/humanitarianinitiative/files/conduct_of_military_operations_in_urban_areas.pdf?m=1615497739

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I did read the entire thing - it's not long. Yes, you can unintentionally harm civilians, proportionately.

It's not intrinsic to urban warfare to do it this way, either. Compare any of the American operations of this millennium.

[–] DarthJon@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

US operations have killed a lot of civilians. But there is no theater of war quite like Gaza, which is what makes the numbers that much more impressive.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Gaza is denser than a typical Arab area (gee, I wonder why) but the construction and customs are pretty much the same. Nothing about it morally, legally or tactically justifies flattening it any more than Fallujah or Kandahar.

[–] DarthJon@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The entire area is a giant terrorist base. There are 500km of tunnels underneath Gaza used to transport weapons and conduct terror attacks. Hamas was integrated into the civilian infrastructure.

The impact on civilians is devastating but this is the only way to end the cycle of violence. Groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda still exist but they have no power because they have no territory. Israel has now done the same to Hamas.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda still exist but they have no power because they have no territory. Israel has now done the same to Hamas.

They're less of a threat, that's true, but they're far from gone.

Okay, so you're done then? We can have a two-state solution with the PLO in charge in Palestine, and they can rebuild and control their own non-Israeli borders? That's what I think should happen next, as does the broader international community.

[–] DarthJon@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Israel isn't done yet. Hezbollah is almost done, but there is still the head of the octopus: the Iranian regime. As long as they are in power and are working towards nukes, Israel will not be able to live in peace.

A two state solution is a long term goal. Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 was the first test of a 2SS and look how that turned out. The Palestinian people have a role to play in this too, by making a commitment to pursue peaceful coexistence. Otherwise we will go through all this again in another 15 years.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

So, that's a no.

As long as there's an Arab or Persian population around and angry, there's no 100% safety. I'm sure you know that. If anything that stands in the way of Israel's safety is a legitimate target, which is what you're saying at this point, you're talking about genocide.

This is the part where I mention I myself am Jewish, if never practicing, and that kind of thing is painfully ironic.

[–] DarthJon@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Where did I say that Israel needs to wipe out any particular population? I said they need to deal with Hezbollah, which is a genocidal terror army, and then deal with the Iranian regime, which is a genocidal Islamist government regime. Putting off a two state solution until the Palestinians can agree to stop trying to murder Jews isn't advocating for genocide. That's a ridiculous statement you made.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 hour ago

Glad to hear that's not what you're saying - it really feels like that's where the region is headed.

What's the alternative to a two-state solution? One state is a pipe dream right now, and the status quo leaves Israel unsafe. Even if every single individual Hamas fighter was killed somehow, there's a lot of Palestinians who want revenge for the destruction of their whole world, and another organisation would start.