Reply to Israeli fears

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Israeli fears"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Muslima][quote=Anonymous][quote=Muslima]Well we don't live in the jungle, and you don't have the right to kill 848+ people, injure 9370+ & demolish 10080+ houses because you're "scared"! One thing is sure, Palestinian children will not forget[/quote]

Israel responds harshly because of the fears.  [b]Israel would not have attacked Gaza if Gaza had not launched rockets into Gaza.[/b]

How Israel attacked is up to debate...[b]but the legality of the response is clear.  Israel was allowed to respond[/b].  Unfortunately there was collateral damage.  That happens in war.  However, Israel has a legal right to go after those that attack.

Furthermore, Hamas, using schools, shelters, etc. as tactical spot to store and launch weapons is as guilty of war crimes as anyone.  [/quote]

False, you should research Occupation Law before you start commenting on self-defense . Under international occupation law Israel doesn't have the right of self-defense. I have said it before and I will repeat it. A state cannot simultaneously exercise control over territory it occupies and militarily attack that territory on the claim that it is “foreign” and poses an exogenous national security threat.

Occupation Law prohibits an occupying power from initiating armed force against its occupied territory. By mere virtue of the existence of military occupation, an armed attack, including one consistent with the UN Charter, has already occurred and been concluded. Therefore the right of self-defense in international law is, by definition since 1967, not available to Israel with respect to its dealings with real or perceived threats emanating from the West Bank and Gaza Strip population. To achieve its security goals, Israel can resort to no more than the police powers, or the exceptional use of militarized force, vested in it by IHL. This is not to say that Israel cannot defend itself, but those defensive measures can neither take the form of warfare nor be justified as self-defense in international law. As explained by Ian Scobbie:

[quote]To equate the two is simply to confuse the legal with the linguistic denotation of the term ”defense.“ Just as ”negligence,“ in law, does not mean ”carelessness” but, rather, refers to an elaborate doctrinal structure, so ”self-defense” refers to a complex doctrine that has a much more restricted scope than ordinary notions of ”defense.“ [/quote]

To argue that Israel is employing legitimate “self-defense” when it militarily attacks Gaza affords the occupying power the right to use both police and military force in occupied territory. [b]An occupying power cannot justify military force as self-defense in territory for which it is responsible as the occupant. [/b][/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics