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.
LOL, defending Samidoun isn't a good look.
There are two types of Palestinian activist:
Unfortunately, (1) is a much, much smaller group than (2). Many Palestinian activist organizations have been shown to have clear links to terrorism.
We need less criminalization of speech, not more.
All forms of extremism are bad.
They're not. The statement is nothing more than a face-saving move to avoid looking weak to other Middle East countries. They don't want to retaliate because they know it will end with the destruction of their nuclear dreams, so they're using the ceasefire as an excuse.
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
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?
Gaza isn't a country, it's a tiny enclave. War is very destructive. The best way to avoid it is to not start wars.
Like I said, people were screaming genocide in 2014 when the war lasted 2 weeks and the death toll was miniscule. Meaningless.
They were violently attacked and they have the right to respond with military force, the same right that any sovereign nation has. It's one thing to question whether Israel could be doing more to prevent civilian casualties, but if your starting point is that Israel just shouldn't respond at all, then your position is simply unreasonable to begin with.
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.
Of course nothing is going to convince me of that because the facts simply don't support it. By the way, did you know that during the 2014 war in Gaza, when the death toll was around 2500, people were accusing Israel of committing genocide then too? Anti-Zionists deliberately stretch the bounds of these concepts to make Israel a pariah. Just keep throwing accusations around and eventually something will stick. And even if it doesn't, Israel's enemies will continue to believe it anyway. This is a longstanding part of their propaganda strategy.
One could reasonably conclude that this means the case is inconclusive. The case hasn’t been dismissed, but it hasn’t rendered a verdict of guilty or acquittal either. The question is still open.>
No, it literally means nothing other than, "We, the ICJ, can hear this case."
I didn't realize that was even open for debate....