Intensification. War Stories. Day 417.

Which “obligations under international law” does the Group of 7 communiqué expect Israel to fully comply with?

The UN did not comply with 1701. Who gives the G7 any right to make the bogus demand that Israel obey “international law” as if that jargon rhetoric has any meaning at all?

The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine, which Russia seized and controls, poses nuclear safety risks and violates Resolution 1701. The Group of Seven (G7) comprises major industrialized democracies (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States) along with the European Union. The G7 does not have binding decision-making authority. It serves only as a forum for dialogue, like the UN General Assembly it expresses shared positions on global issues.

International law encompasses a broad range of principles and agreements that govern the relationships between nations. The United Nations Charter is the foundational treaty of the United Nations, signed on June 26, 1945. It establishes the purposes, principles, and structure of the UN, including the maintenance of international peace and security, the promotion of social progress, and the protection of human rights. The Charter outlines the roles and responsibilities of the UN’s main organs, such as the General Assembly, the Security Council, and the International Court of Justice.

The U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights do extend certain protections to all individuals within the United States, regardless of their citizenship status. The Supreme Court has ruled in several cases that non-citizens, including undocumented immigrants, are entitled to due process and equal protection under the law.

For example, in the landmark case of Plyler v. Doe (1982), the Supreme Court held that states cannot deny free public education to children based on their immigration status. This decision was based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which applies to all persons within the United States.

While there are certain rights and privileges that are reserved for U.S. citizens, such as the right to vote and run for federal office, many fundamental rights and protections are extended to everyone within the country’s borders. This includes the right to a fair trial, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and freedom of speech and religion.

During an active war, countries are bound by international humanitarian law (IHL), also known as the laws of war, which sets out rules to protect those who are not participating in the conflict and to limit the effects of warfare. All combatants who are captured or have surrendered must be treated humanely. This includes providing adequate food, water, shelter, and medical care. Torture, cruel treatment, and outrages upon personal dignity are strictly prohibited.

Captured combatants are considered POWs and are entitled to specific protections under the Geneva Conventions. They must be protected from violence, intimidation, insults, and public curiosity. Parties to a conflict must always distinguish between combatants and civilians. Attacks should only be directed at military targets.

Any attack must be proportionate, meaning that the anticipated military advantage must outweigh the potential harm to civilians. All feasible precautions must be taken to avoid or minimize harm to civilians and civilian objects. Direct attacks against civilians are prohibited. This includes indiscriminate attacks that do not distinguish between military targets and civilians.

Violations of IHL can constitute war crimes. Individuals, including military commanders and political leaders, can be held accountable for war crimes by national and international courts. Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Red Cross have flagrantly violated these rules. Yet the UN nor any so called International Court has publicly accused them of war crimes as has happened repeatedly against Israel?

Human Rights Watch not part of the UN, nor any International court! The ICC issued arrest warrents for a dead Hamas leader! The Red Cross has never visited the Israeli stolen hostages – ever. Human Rights Watch is an independent non-governmental organization, not part of the UN or any international court.

The ICC, they have indeed issued arrest warrants for leaders on both sides of the conflict, including a deceased Hamas leader. To issue an arrest warrent for living Israeli leaders does not compare to a dead Hamas leader. The idea of equal – utterly absurd. The Red Cross excuse that Hamas refuses to permit them to visit Israeli prisoners equally as shallow and hollow.

The comparison between living Israeli leaders and a deceased Hamas leader highlights the challenges in achieving perceived fairness and justice. The court’s jurisdiction is limited to countries that have ratified the Rome Statute, and its ability to enforce decisions relies heavily on the cooperation of member states. This can lead to perceptions of selective justice, as the ICC may be more effective in pursuing cases in some regions than others.

Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court (ICC). Despite this, the ICC has claimed jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed in the Palestinian territories, which has been a point of significant controversy, comparable to UNRWA working together with Hamas to kill Israelis; or UNIFIL permitting Hezbollah to dig and arm tunnels next to UNIFIL outpost close to the Israeli border!

UN Security Council Resolution 242, adopted under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, is indeed a recommendation rather than a binding decision. Chapter VI deals with the peaceful resolution of disputes and does not have the same enforceable power as Chapter VII, which can authorize the use of force.

The recognition of Palestine as a non-member observer state by the UN General Assembly in 2012 is indeed a significant development in international diplomacy. This recognition has allowed Palestine to join various international treaties and organizations, including the International Criminal Court (ICC).

While it’s true that the political entity known as Palestine ceased to exist in 1948 with the establishment of the State of Israel, the term “Palestine” has continued to be used to refer to the territories of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem. Pie in the sky! The UN protectorate of Palestine ceased to exist in 1948. This pretense that some imaginary Palestine exists when in point of fact, its existence constitutes as a legal fiction.

The status of Palestine is indeed a complex and contentious issue. The term “Palestine” has been used historically to refer to the region, and despite the political changes in 1948, it continues to be used in various contexts, including by the United Nations and other international bodies. This does not change the fact that Palestine exists only as an imaginary legal fiction. If 100 people jump off a roof and they all break their legs. Does this mean that Israel too must jump off the same roof and break its legs?

The recognition of Palestine as a non-member observer state by the UN General Assembly in 2012 has allowed it to participate in international treaties and organizations, including the ICC. Bunk. The UNGA votes do not have binding authority. Only the UN Security Council has this power. The UN General Assembly (UNGA) resolutions are not legally binding in the same way as those of the UN Security Council (UNSC). The UNGA can make recommendations and express the collective opinion of the international community, but it does not have the authority to enforce its resolutions. Yet the ICC pretends that the UNGA recognition of Palestine gives it the authority to issue arrest warrents against Israeli leaders! Utter nonsense.

Its a ICC power play to pretend that the UNGA vote in 2012 allows Palestine a non existent fairy tail entity to accede to the Rome Statute. The ICC ambition to negate the National Independence of Israel an utter abomination of legal jurisprudence. Israel disputes the ICC’s jurisdiction, arguing that Palestine is not a sovereign state and therefore cannot delegate jurisdiction to the ICC. This legal and political dispute underscores the complexities and challenges of international law and the enforcement of justice in conflict zones.

Therefore international law requires a treaty agreement. Like the Rome treaty. Since no treaty exists therefore there can be no “international law” imposed unilaterally upon Israel by foreign imperialist powers abroad. Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute and does not recognize the ICC’s jurisdiction. The ICC’s claim to jurisdiction over alleged crimes in the Palestinian territories is based on Palestine’s accession to the Rome Statute, following its recognition as a non-member observer state by the UN General Assembly in 2012. This situation is highly contentious and reflects the broader complexities and challenges of international law.

The enforcement of international law often depends on the cooperation and consent of states. Without such consent, the ability of international bodies to impose legal obligations or enforce decisions can be limited. Hamas, Hebollah, the UN, UNRWA and UNIFIL and international courts have raped their mandate of determination of international law.

Hamas expel the PA from Gaza in 2006. Is Gaza too imaginary Palestine? Gaza is often considered part of the broader Palestinian territories, which also include the West Bank and East Jerusalem, according to Chapter VI UN Resolution 242 which only suggests “occupied territories”!

Israel is a sovereign state and not a UN protectorate. The United Nations does not have the authority to unilaterally determine the borders of any sovereign state, including Israel. The borders of Israel, like those of any country, are determined through negotiations and agreements between the relevant parties.

Israel does not occupy recaptured Samaria. In 1950 the UN itself condemned the Jordanian annexation of Samaria which it renamed “West Bank”. The Jordanian defeat in June 1967 – their West Bank ceased to exist as did Palestine in 1948. Therefore the UN cannot unilaterally determine that Gaza part of Samaria. Especially since Israel in 2005 withdrew from Gaza.

That the UN generally considers Gaza part of the Palestinian territories does not amount to a hill of beans. The recognition and perspectives of international bodies like the UN can indeed be seen as symbolic and political rather than legally binding. Furthermore, Hamas rejected the Oslo Accords! Hamas listed as a terrorist organization. Therefore its utterly impossible for the UN to pretend it has the authority to unilaterally declare Gaza as part of Samaria. The same applies to the Rome Treaty ICC illegal court.

The UN’s recognition of Gaza as part of the Palestinian territories is based on historical and political contexts, but it does not have the authority to unilaterally determine borders or governance. The protectorate of Palestine historically ceased to exist in 1948.

The recognition of Gaza and other territories as part of the Palestinian territories by the international community is based on a series of UN resolutions and international agreements, even though Israel has not agreed to these specific terms. The recognition of Gaza and other territories as part of the Palestinian territories by the international community is based on a series of UN resolutions and international agreements, even though Israel has not agreed to these specific terms.

Is Israel an Independent nation or a UN protectorate? Did UN 242 turn Israel back to a UN protectorate territory? No the UN and ICC etc which determine the status of Palestine independent of Israel proves that these bodies to not treat Israel as an Independent nation.

The actions and decisions of international bodies like the UN and the ICC can indeed be perceived as challenging the sovereignty of nations, especially in complex and contentious situations like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The recognition of Palestine as a non-member observer state by the UN General Assembly and the subsequent actions by the ICC are based on international legal and political frameworks.

The interference by the UN and ICC violates International Law. Israel not a UN protectorate territory. The internal domestic affairs by which Israel conducts its policies with dhimmi hostile Arab minority refugees fall outside the mandate of all foreign outside “international” imperialist powers. The sovereignty of nations and the principles of non-interference in domestic affairs are indeed fundamental aspects of international law. Israel, as an independent nation, has the right to govern its internal affairs without external interference. The involvement of international bodies like the UN and the ICC in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is based on their mandates to promote peace, security, and justice, but these actions can be seen as infringing on national sovereignty.

Does Israel need to bomb the Court of the Hague and UN in New York and Geneva to prove its national independence? Legal fiction the ICC nor the UN does not rule over Israel. Israel defines justice as fair restitution of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B. Oct 7th, how do the kangaroo courts and UN justify condemning Israel? The ICC’s recent issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, is based on allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity during the conflict in Gaza.

Dog chasing after their own tail circular arguments. Palestine ceased to exist in 1948. Fact. An imaginary fiction palestine’s accession to the Rome statute in 2015 a fraud. Only independent nations can sign the Rome treaty. The recognition of Palestine as a non-member observer state by the UN General Assembly in 2012 allowed it to join various international treaties and organizations, including the International Criminal Court (ICC). An earlier legal fraud.

Israel condemns the ICC’s jurisdiction, arguing that Palestine is not a sovereign state and therefore cannot delegate jurisdiction to the ICC. This legal and political dispute underscores the complexities and challenges of international law and the enforcement of justice in conflict zones. The situation remains highly controversial, with differing perspectives on the legitimacy and implications of these international actions.

Dershowitz: “We’ll argue that ICC has no jurisdiction against Israel, not only because it isn’t a member, but also because the treaty that established that court precludes it from considering cases against any country with a valid judicial system”

Which “obligations under international law” does the Group of 7 communiqué expect Israel to fully comply with?

The UN did not comply with 1701. Who gives the G7 any right to make the bogus demand that Israel obey “international law” as if that jargon rhetoric has any meaning at all?

The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine, which Russia seized and controls, poses nuclear safety risks and violates Resolution 1701. The Group of Seven (G7) comprises major industrialized democracies (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States) along with the European Union. The G7 does not have binding decision-making authority. It serves only as a forum for dialogue, like the UN General Assembly it expresses shared positions on global issues.

International law encompasses a broad range of principles and agreements that govern the relationships between nations. The United Nations Charter is the foundational treaty of the United Nations, signed on June 26, 1945. It establishes the purposes, principles, and structure of the UN, including the maintenance of international peace and security, the promotion of social progress, and the protection of human rights. The Charter outlines the roles and responsibilities of the UN’s main organs, such as the General Assembly, the Security Council, and the International Court of Justice.

The U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights do extend certain protections to all individuals within the United States, regardless of their citizenship status. The Supreme Court has ruled in several cases that non-citizens, including undocumented immigrants, are entitled to due process and equal protection under the law.

For example, in the landmark case of Plyler v. Doe (1982), the Supreme Court held that states cannot deny free public education to children based on their immigration status. This decision was based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which applies to all persons within the United States.

While there are certain rights and privileges that are reserved for U.S. citizens, such as the right to vote and run for federal office, many fundamental rights and protections are extended to everyone within the country’s borders. This includes the right to a fair trial, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and freedom of speech and religion.

During an active war, countries are bound by international humanitarian law (IHL), also known as the laws of war, which sets out rules to protect those who are not participating in the conflict and to limit the effects of warfare. All combatants who are captured or have surrendered must be treated humanely. This includes providing adequate food, water, shelter, and medical care. Torture, cruel treatment, and outrages upon personal dignity are strictly prohibited.

Captured combatants are considered POWs and are entitled to specific protections under the Geneva Conventions. They must be protected from violence, intimidation, insults, and public curiosity. Parties to a conflict must always distinguish between combatants and civilians. Attacks should only be directed at military targets.

Any attack must be proportionate, meaning that the anticipated military advantage must outweigh the potential harm to civilians. All feasible precautions must be taken to avoid or minimize harm to civilians and civilian objects. Direct attacks against civilians are prohibited. This includes indiscriminate attacks that do not distinguish between military targets and civilians.

Violations of IHL can constitute war crimes. Individuals, including military commanders and political leaders, can be held accountable for war crimes by national and international courts. Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Red Cross have flagrantly violated these rules. Yet the UN nor any so called International Court has publicly accused them of war crimes as has happened repeatedly against Israel?

Human Rights Watch not part of the UN, nor any International court! The ICC issued arrest warrents for a dead Hamas leader! The Red Cross has never visited the Israeli stolen hostages – ever. Human Rights Watch is an independent non-governmental organization, not part of the UN or any international court.

The ICC, they have indeed issued arrest warrants for leaders on both sides of the conflict, including a deceased Hamas leader. To issue an arrest warrent for living Israeli leaders does not compare to a dead Hamas leader. The idea of equal – utterly absurd. The Red Cross excuse that Hamas refuses to permit them to visit Israeli prisoners equally as shallow and hollow.

The comparison between living Israeli leaders and a deceased Hamas leader highlights the challenges in achieving perceived fairness and justice. The court’s jurisdiction is limited to countries that have ratified the Rome Statute, and its ability to enforce decisions relies heavily on the cooperation of member states. This can lead to perceptions of selective justice, as the ICC may be more effective in pursuing cases in some regions than others.

Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court (ICC). Despite this, the ICC has claimed jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed in the Palestinian territories, which has been a point of significant controversy, comparable to UNRWA working together with Hamas to kill Israelis; or UNIFIL permitting Hezbollah to dig and arm tunnels next to UNIFIL outpost close to the Israeli border!

UN Security Council Resolution 242, adopted under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, is indeed a recommendation rather than a binding decision. Chapter VI deals with the peaceful resolution of disputes and does not have the same enforceable power as Chapter VII, which can authorize the use of force.

The recognition of Palestine as a non-member observer state by the UN General Assembly in 2012 is indeed a significant development in international diplomacy. This recognition has allowed Palestine to join various international treaties and organizations, including the International Criminal Court (ICC).

While it’s true that the political entity known as Palestine ceased to exist in 1948 with the establishment of the State of Israel, the term “Palestine” has continued to be used to refer to the territories of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem. Pie in the sky! The UN protectorate of Palestine ceased to exist in 1948. This pretense that some imaginary Palestine exists when in point of fact, its existence constitutes as a legal fiction.

The status of Palestine is indeed a complex and contentious issue. The term “Palestine” has been used historically to refer to the region, and despite the political changes in 1948, it continues to be used in various contexts, including by the United Nations and other international bodies. This does not change the fact that Palestine exists only as an imaginary legal fiction. If 100 people jump off a roof and they all break their legs. Does this mean that Israel too must jump off the same roof and break its legs?

The recognition of Palestine as a non-member observer state by the UN General Assembly in 2012 has allowed it to participate in international treaties and organizations, including the ICC. Bunk. The UNGA votes do not have binding authority. Only the UN Security Council has this power. The UN General Assembly (UNGA) resolutions are not legally binding in the same way as those of the UN Security Council (UNSC). The UNGA can make recommendations and express the collective opinion of the international community, but it does not have the authority to enforce its resolutions. Yet the ICC pretends that the UNGA recognition of Palestine gives it the authority to issue arrest warrents against Israeli leaders! Utter nonsense.

Its a ICC power play to pretend that the UNGA vote in 2012 allows Palestine a non existent fairy tail entity to accede to the Rome Statute. The ICC ambition to negate the National Independence of Israel an utter abomination of legal jurisprudence. Israel disputes the ICC’s jurisdiction, arguing that Palestine is not a sovereign state and therefore cannot delegate jurisdiction to the ICC. This legal and political dispute underscores the complexities and challenges of international law and the enforcement of justice in conflict zones.

Therefore international law requires a treaty agreement. Like the Rome treaty. Since no treaty exists therefore there can be no “international law” imposed unilaterally upon Israel by foreign imperialist powers abroad. Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute and does not recognize the ICC’s jurisdiction. The ICC’s claim to jurisdiction over alleged crimes in the Palestinian territories is based on Palestine’s accession to the Rome Statute, following its recognition as a non-member observer state by the UN General Assembly in 2012. This situation is highly contentious and reflects the broader complexities and challenges of international law.

The enforcement of international law often depends on the cooperation and consent of states. Without such consent, the ability of international bodies to impose legal obligations or enforce decisions can be limited. Hamas, Hebollah, the UN, UNRWA and UNIFIL and international courts have raped their mandate of determination of international law.

Hamas expel the PA from Gaza in 2006. Is Gaza too imaginary Palestine? Gaza is often considered part of the broader Palestinian territories, which also include the West Bank and East Jerusalem, according to Chapter VI UN Resolution 242 which only suggests “occupied territories”!

Israel is a sovereign state and not a UN protectorate. The United Nations does not have the authority to unilaterally determine the borders of any sovereign state, including Israel. The borders of Israel, like those of any country, are determined through negotiations and agreements between the relevant parties.

Israel does not occupy recaptured Samaria. In 1950 the UN itself condemned the Jordanian annexation of Samaria which it renamed “West Bank”. The Jordanian defeat in June 1967 – their West Bank ceased to exist as did Palestine in 1948. Therefore the UN cannot unilaterally determine that Gaza part of Samaria. Especially since Israel in 2005 withdrew from Gaza.

That the UN generally considers Gaza part of the Palestinian territories does not amount to a hill of beans. The recognition and perspectives of international bodies like the UN can indeed be seen as symbolic and political rather than legally binding. Furthermore, Hamas rejected the Oslo Accords! Hamas listed as a terrorist organization. Therefore its utterly impossible for the UN to pretend it has the authority to unilaterally declare Gaza as part of Samaria. The same applies to the Rome Treaty ICC illegal court.

The UN’s recognition of Gaza as part of the Palestinian territories is based on historical and political contexts, but it does not have the authority to unilaterally determine borders or governance. The protectorate of Palestine historically ceased to exist in 1948.

The recognition of Gaza and other territories as part of the Palestinian territories by the international community is based on a series of UN resolutions and international agreements, even though Israel has not agreed to these specific terms. The recognition of Gaza and other territories as part of the Palestinian territories by the international community is based on a series of UN resolutions and international agreements, even though Israel has not agreed to these specific terms.

Is Israel an Independent nation or a UN protectorate? Did UN 242 turn Israel back to a UN protectorate territory? No the UN and ICC etc which determine the status of Palestine independent of Israel proves that these bodies to not treat Israel as an Independent nation.

The actions and decisions of international bodies like the UN and the ICC can indeed be perceived as challenging the sovereignty of nations, especially in complex and contentious situations like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The recognition of Palestine as a non-member observer state by the UN General Assembly and the subsequent actions by the ICC are based on international legal and political frameworks.

The interference by the UN and ICC violates International Law. Israel not a UN protectorate territory. The internal domestic affairs by which Israel conducts its policies with dhimmi hostile Arab minority refugees fall outside the mandate of all foreign outside “international” imperialist powers. The sovereignty of nations and the principles of non-interference in domestic affairs are indeed fundamental aspects of international law. Israel, as an independent nation, has the right to govern its internal affairs without external interference. The involvement of international bodies like the UN and the ICC in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is based on their mandates to promote peace, security, and justice, but these actions can be seen as infringing on national sovereignty.

Does Israel need to bomb the Court of the Hague and UN in New York and Geneva to prove its national independence? Legal fiction the ICC nor the UN does not rule over Israel. Israel defines justice as fair restitution of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B. Oct 7th, how do the kangaroo courts and UN justify condemning Israel? The ICC’s recent issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, is based on allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity during the conflict in Gaza.

Dog chasing after their own tail circular arguments. Palestine ceased to exist in 1948. Fact. An imaginary fiction palestine’s accession to the Rome statute in 2015 a fraud. Only independent nations can sign the Rome treaty. The recognition of Palestine as a non-member observer state by the UN General Assembly in 2012 allowed it to join various international treaties and organizations, including the International Criminal Court (ICC). An earlier legal fraud.

Israel condemns the ICC’s jurisdiction, arguing that Palestine is not a sovereign state and therefore cannot delegate jurisdiction to the ICC. This legal and political dispute underscores the complexities and challenges of international law and the enforcement of justice in conflict zones. The situation remains highly controversial, with differing perspectives on the legitimacy and implications of these international actions.

The UN did not comply with 1701. Who gives the G7 any right to make the bogus demand that Israel obey “international law” as if that jargon rhetoric has any meaning at all?

The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine, which Russia seized and controls, poses nuclear safety risks and violates Resolution 1701. The Group of Seven (G7) comprises major industrialized democracies (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States) along with the European Union. The G7 does not have binding decision-making authority. It serves only as a forum for dialogue, like the UN General Assembly it expresses shared positions on global issues.

International law encompasses a broad range of principles and agreements that govern the relationships between nations. The United Nations Charter is the foundational treaty of the United Nations, signed on June 26, 1945. It establishes the purposes, principles, and structure of the UN, including the maintenance of international peace and security, the promotion of social progress, and the protection of human rights. The Charter outlines the roles and responsibilities of the UN’s main organs, such as the General Assembly, the Security Council, and the International Court of Justice.

The U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights do extend certain protections to all individuals within the United States, regardless of their citizenship status. The Supreme Court has ruled in several cases that non-citizens, including undocumented immigrants, are entitled to due process and equal protection under the law.

For example, in the landmark case of Plyler v. Doe (1982), the Supreme Court held that states cannot deny free public education to children based on their immigration status. This decision was based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which applies to all persons within the United States.

While there are certain rights and privileges that are reserved for U.S. citizens, such as the right to vote and run for federal office, many fundamental rights and protections are extended to everyone within the country’s borders. This includes the right to a fair trial, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and freedom of speech and religion.

During an active war, countries are bound by international humanitarian law (IHL), also known as the laws of war, which sets out rules to protect those who are not participating in the conflict and to limit the effects of warfare. All combatants who are captured or have surrendered must be treated humanely. This includes providing adequate food, water, shelter, and medical care. Torture, cruel treatment, and outrages upon personal dignity are strictly prohibited.

Captured combatants are considered POWs and are entitled to specific protections under the Geneva Conventions. They must be protected from violence, intimidation, insults, and public curiosity. Parties to a conflict must always distinguish between combatants and civilians. Attacks should only be directed at military targets.

Any attack must be proportionate, meaning that the anticipated military advantage must outweigh the potential harm to civilians. All feasible precautions must be taken to avoid or minimize harm to civilians and civilian objects. Direct attacks against civilians are prohibited. This includes indiscriminate attacks that do not distinguish between military targets and civilians.

Violations of IHL can constitute war crimes. Individuals, including military commanders and political leaders, can be held accountable for war crimes by national and international courts. Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Red Cross have flagrantly violated these rules. Yet the UN nor any so called International Court has publicly accused them of war crimes as has happened repeatedly against Israel?

Human Rights Watch not part of the UN, nor any International court! The ICC issued arrest warrents for a dead Hamas leader! The Red Cross has never visited the Israeli stolen hostages – ever. Human Rights Watch is an independent non-governmental organization, not part of the UN or any international court.

The ICC, they have indeed issued arrest warrants for leaders on both sides of the conflict, including a deceased Hamas leader. To issue an arrest warrent for living Israeli leaders does not compare to a dead Hamas leader. The idea of equal – utterly absurd. The Red Cross excuse that Hamas refuses to permit them to visit Israeli prisoners equally as shallow and hollow.

The comparison between living Israeli leaders and a deceased Hamas leader highlights the challenges in achieving perceived fairness and justice. The court’s jurisdiction is limited to countries that have ratified the Rome Statute, and its ability to enforce decisions relies heavily on the cooperation of member states. This can lead to perceptions of selective justice, as the ICC may be more effective in pursuing cases in some regions than others.

Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court (ICC). Despite this, the ICC has claimed jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed in the Palestinian territories, which has been a point of significant controversy, comparable to UNRWA working together with Hamas to kill Israelis; or UNIFIL permitting Hezbollah to dig and arm tunnels next to UNIFIL outpost close to the Israeli border!

UN Security Council Resolution 242, adopted under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, is indeed a recommendation rather than a binding decision. Chapter VI deals with the peaceful resolution of disputes and does not have the same enforceable power as Chapter VII, which can authorize the use of force.

The recognition of Palestine as a non-member observer state by the UN General Assembly in 2012 is indeed a significant development in international diplomacy. This recognition has allowed Palestine to join various international treaties and organizations, including the International Criminal Court (ICC).

While it’s true that the political entity known as Palestine ceased to exist in 1948 with the establishment of the State of Israel, the term “Palestine” has continued to be used to refer to the territories of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem. Pie in the sky! The UN protectorate of Palestine ceased to exist in 1948. This pretense that some imaginary Palestine exists when in point of fact, its existence constitutes as a legal fiction.

The status of Palestine is indeed a complex and contentious issue. The term “Palestine” has been used historically to refer to the region, and despite the political changes in 1948, it continues to be used in various contexts, including by the United Nations and other international bodies. This does not change the fact that Palestine exists only as an imaginary legal fiction. If 100 people jump off a roof and they all break their legs. Does this mean that Israel too must jump off the same roof and break its legs?

The recognition of Palestine as a non-member observer state by the UN General Assembly in 2012 has allowed it to participate in international treaties and organizations, including the ICC. Bunk. The UNGA votes do not have binding authority. Only the UN Security Council has this power. The UN General Assembly (UNGA) resolutions are not legally binding in the same way as those of the UN Security Council (UNSC). The UNGA can make recommendations and express the collective opinion of the international community, but it does not have the authority to enforce its resolutions. Yet the ICC pretends that the UNGA recognition of Palestine gives it the authority to issue arrest warrents against Israeli leaders! Utter nonsense.

Its a ICC power play to pretend that the UNGA vote in 2012 allows Palestine a non existent fairy tail entity to accede to the Rome Statute. The ICC ambition to negate the National Independence of Israel an utter abomination of legal jurisprudence. Israel disputes the ICC’s jurisdiction, arguing that Palestine is not a sovereign state and therefore cannot delegate jurisdiction to the ICC. This legal and political dispute underscores the complexities and challenges of international law and the enforcement of justice in conflict zones.

Therefore international law requires a treaty agreement. Like the Rome treaty. Since no treaty exists therefore there can be no “international law” imposed unilaterally upon Israel by foreign imperialist powers abroad. Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute and does not recognize the ICC’s jurisdiction. The ICC’s claim to jurisdiction over alleged crimes in the Palestinian territories is based on Palestine’s accession to the Rome Statute, following its recognition as a non-member observer state by the UN General Assembly in 2012. This situation is highly contentious and reflects the broader complexities and challenges of international law.

The enforcement of international law often depends on the cooperation and consent of states. Without such consent, the ability of international bodies to impose legal obligations or enforce decisions can be limited. Hamas, Hebollah, the UN, UNRWA and UNIFIL and international courts have raped their mandate of determination of international law.

Hamas expel the PA from Gaza in 2006. Is Gaza too imaginary Palestine? Gaza is often considered part of the broader Palestinian territories, which also include the West Bank and East Jerusalem, according to Chapter VI UN Resolution 242 which only suggests “occupied territories”!

Israel is a sovereign state and not a UN protectorate. The United Nations does not have the authority to unilaterally determine the borders of any sovereign state, including Israel. The borders of Israel, like those of any country, are determined through negotiations and agreements between the relevant parties.

Israel does not occupy recaptured Samaria. In 1950 the UN itself condemned the Jordanian annexation of Samaria which it renamed “West Bank”. The Jordanian defeat in June 1967 – their West Bank ceased to exist as did Palestine in 1948. Therefore the UN cannot unilaterally determine that Gaza part of Samaria. Especially since Israel in 2005 withdrew from Gaza.

That the UN generally considers Gaza part of the Palestinian territories does not amount to a hill of beans. The recognition and perspectives of international bodies like the UN can indeed be seen as symbolic and political rather than legally binding. Furthermore, Hamas rejected the Oslo Accords! Hamas listed as a terrorist organization. Therefore its utterly impossible for the UN to pretend it has the authority to unilaterally declare Gaza as part of Samaria. The same applies to the Rome Treaty ICC illegal court.

The UN’s recognition of Gaza as part of the Palestinian territories is based on historical and political contexts, but it does not have the authority to unilaterally determine borders or governance. The protectorate of Palestine historically ceased to exist in 1948.

The recognition of Gaza and other territories as part of the Palestinian territories by the international community is based on a series of UN resolutions and international agreements, even though Israel has not agreed to these specific terms. The recognition of Gaza and other territories as part of the Palestinian territories by the international community is based on a series of UN resolutions and international agreements, even though Israel has not agreed to these specific terms.

Is Israel an Independent nation or a UN protectorate? Did UN 242 turn Israel back to a UN protectorate territory? No the UN and ICC etc which determine the status of Palestine independent of Israel proves that these bodies to not treat Israel as an Independent nation.

The actions and decisions of international bodies like the UN and the ICC can indeed be perceived as challenging the sovereignty of nations, especially in complex and contentious situations like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The recognition of Palestine as a non-member observer state by the UN General Assembly and the subsequent actions by the ICC are based on international legal and political frameworks.

The interference by the UN and ICC violates International Law. Israel not a UN protectorate territory. The internal domestic affairs by which Israel conducts its policies with dhimmi hostile Arab minority refugees fall outside the mandate of all foreign outside “international” imperialist powers. The sovereignty of nations and the principles of non-interference in domestic affairs are indeed fundamental aspects of international law. Israel, as an independent nation, has the right to govern its internal affairs without external interference. The involvement of international bodies like the UN and the ICC in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is based on their mandates to promote peace, security, and justice, but these actions can be seen as infringing on national sovereignty.

Does Israel need to bomb the Court of the Hague and UN in New York and Geneva to prove its national independence? Legal fiction the ICC nor the UN does not rule over Israel. Israel defines justice as fair restitution of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B. Oct 7th, how do the kangaroo courts and UN justify condemning Israel? The ICC’s recent issuance of arrest warrants for Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, is based on allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity during the conflict in Gaza.

Dog chasing after their own tail circular arguments. Palestine ceased to exist in 1948. Fact. An imaginary fiction palestine’s accession to the Rome statute in 2015 a fraud. Only independent nations can sign the Rome treaty. The recognition of Palestine as a non-member observer state by the UN General Assembly in 2012 allowed it to join various international treaties and organizations, including the International Criminal Court (ICC). An earlier legal fraud.

Israel condemns the ICC’s jurisdiction, arguing that Palestine is not a sovereign state and therefore cannot delegate jurisdiction to the ICC. This legal and political dispute underscores the complexities and challenges of international law and the enforcement of justice in conflict zones. The situation remains highly controversial, with differing perspectives on the legitimacy and implications of these international actions.