Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Tamas]

This is an unclear article, maybe the author was too excited - what tribunal, a Home Office one?

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/oct/30/manchester-university-student-dana-abu-qamar-wins-back-visa-after-pro-gaza-comments

In any case, this apparently very significant tribunal has decided that saying about the Oct 7 attack:

"For 16 years Gaza has been under blockade, and for the first time they are actively resisting, they are not on the defence, and this is truly a once in a lifetime experience."

She also said: "And everyone is, we are both in fear, but also in fear of what, how Israel will retaliate and how we've seen it retaliate overnight, and the missiles that it's launched and the attacks, but also we are full of pride. We are really, really full of joy of what happened."

is:

her language of "actively resisting" and "broke free" would be recognised by informed observers as relating to lawful acts of Palestinian resistance.

So actually I wouldn't mind learning what tribunal decided that the 7th October terrorist attack was a lawful act of resistance.

[grumbler]

This is an unclear article, maybe the author was too excited - what tribunal, a Home Office one?

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/oct/30/manchester-university-student-dana-abu-qamar-wins-back-visa-after-pro-gaza-comments

In any case, this apparently very significant tribunal has decided that saying about the Oct 7 attack:

"For 16 years Gaza has been under blockade, and for the first time they are actively resisting, they are not on the defence, and this is truly a once in a lifetime experience."

She also said: "And everyone is, we are both in fear, but also in fear of what, how Israel will retaliate and how we've seen it retaliate overnight, and the missiles that it's launched and the attacks, but also we are full of pride. We are really, really full of joy of what happened."

is:

her language of "actively resisting" and "broke free" would be recognised by informed observers as relating to lawful acts of Palestinian resistance.

So actually I wouldn't mind learning what tribunal decided that the 7th October terrorist attack was a lawful act of resistance.

Other than not explicitly stating what the tribunal was, I don't see how this article could be called confusing.  The issue presented in the story was clear-cut:

The Home Office failed to demonstrate that the presence of Dana Abu Qamar, 20, was "not conducive to public good" after the law student's visa was revoked in December 2023, according to a tribunal ruling.

Presumably this is some sort of tribunal that hears appeals to Home Office decisions.

The part about her words being about Oct 7 and that the "tribunal decided that the 7th October terrorist attack was a lawful act of resistance" were added by you, and the only confusion is why you state those things to be true.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Big news if true:

Despite Hezbollah's declarations throughout the war, the terrorist organization has agreed to drop its demands and is ready to withdraw beyond the Litani River, Lebanon's MTV website, which is associated with Hezbollah opponents, reported Wednesday night.

The report indicated that Hezbollah agreed to establish a demilitarized zone, with all its weapons to be moved beyond the river. It was also claimed that Hezbollah no longer insists on being directly connected to events in Gaza.

Devil of course will be in the details, as prior agreements to stay north of that river have never been meaningfully upheld.

[Tamas]

Big news if true:

Despite Hezbollah's declarations throughout the war, the terrorist organization has agreed to drop its demands and is ready to withdraw beyond the Litani River, Lebanon's MTV website, which is associated with Hezbollah opponents, reported Wednesday night.

The report indicated that Hezbollah agreed to establish a demilitarized zone, with all its weapons to be moved beyond the river. It was also claimed that Hezbollah no longer insists on being directly connected to events in Gaza.

Devil of course will be in the details, as prior agreements to stay north of that river have never been meaningfully upheld.

This is where a UN mission actually concerned about safety of people on Israel's side of the border could come handy.

[Barrister]

So actually I wouldn't mind learning what tribunal decided that the 7th October terrorist attack was a lawful act of resistance.

I don't think there are any serious observers who say the Palestinians can not "lawfully" resist Israel.

It's jus that resistance needs to go after military targets - or at least after aspects of state control.  You can't just murder civilians and call it "resistance".

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't think there are any serious observers who say the Palestinians can not "lawfully" resist Israel.

I think many serious observers would say that; indeed, I think that is the stronger view

Under international law, states have the monopoly of legitimate organized violence.  So the argument that Palestinians can lawfully resist Israel using organized armed force requires either finding that customary international recognizes such a right to resist, or that Palestine has sufficient attributes of statehood to qualify.  Both questionable propositions.

This speaks to legality only, not whether such resistance may be just or right.

[Barrister]

I don't think there are any serious observers who say the Palestinians can not "lawfully" resist Israel.

I think many serious observers would say that; indeed, I think that is the stronger view

Under international law, states have the monopoly of legitimate organized violence.  So the argument that Palestinians can lawfully resist Israel using organized armed force requires either finding that customary international recognizes such a right to resist, or that Palestine has sufficient attributes of statehood to qualify.  Both questionable propositions.

This speaks to legality only, not whether such resistance may be just or right.

So this is one of those topics where I'm happy to discuss, but I'm no JAG lawyer or expert on the rules of war.

The international rules of law exist almost exclusively as treaties signed between states.  As such they talk almost exclusively about duties and obligations on states, and are largely (exclusively?) silent on the topic of rebels or civil wars.

But civil wars / rebellions / secessionists have existed for as long as the Geneva Conventions and the like have, and I don't think it's ever been understood that such actions are inherently, inevitably illegal under the rules of war.  You raise up arms against the government and lose, well you're certainly subject to the criminal laws of that government - from murder to treason to whatever else.

But would, say, Robert E Lee be guilty of war crimes under international law?  I would say not.  Or at least if he would theoretically be guilty of war crimes it was not for simply raising and commanding an army, and would be for more specific acts like, I dunno, the treatment of prisoners at Andersonville.  (The fact Lee was spared prosecution after the War was a result of political, not legal, decision-making).

So if Hamas, on October 7, rose up to attack Israeli Military or police targets I can't see how it would be against the "rules of war", even if I'm sure it would be against Israeli criminal law.


If someone wants to tell my how and why I'm wrong I'm happy to listen.

[Razgovory]

I don't think there are any serious observers who say the Palestinians can not "lawfully" resist Israel.

I think many serious observers would say that; indeed, I think that is the stronger view

Under international law, states have the monopoly of legitimate organized violence.  So the argument that Palestinians can lawfully resist Israel using organized armed force requires either finding that customary international recognizes such a right to resist, or that Palestine has sufficient attributes of statehood to qualify.  Both questionable propositions.

This speaks to legality only, not whether such resistance may be just or right.

I have seen many people claiming that a right to resist is part of international law.

[The Minsky Moment]

BB the question you raised is whether resistance is "lawful".  That is separate and distinct from the question of how fighters in civil wars or secessionist movements can be treated.

The Geneva Conventions extend protections to members of "organized resistance movements" regardless of whether recognized by the detained party. And there are universal protections that apply in all conflicts within a state.  Concretely that means Palestinian civilians in Gaza are entitled to protections under the Geneva conventions.  It also means that if Hamas had organized its resistance forces into a proper uniformed military force, subject to discipline and required to adhere to international norms, it could in theory claim protections under Geneva III. (Although Israel might not recognize that status as it did not sign the Additional Protocol I)

Thus, it's possible for an armed resistance to have no recognized right to use force under international law and yet still be entitled to claim protections for its combatants and civilians.  And that of course is well established under customary international law and precedent (the American Revolution being a notable early example).

[DGuller]

Laws are typically drafted by entities being rebelled against, not entities doing the rebelling.

[crazy canuck]

So if Hamas, on October 7, rose up to attack Israeli Military or police targets I can't see how it would be against the "rules of war", even if I'm sure it would be against Israeli criminal law.

Please explain how this scenario would work, given the fact HAMAS has been declared a terrorist organization for quite some time.  How would that action not be an act of terrorism under both international and Canadian law?  Not to mention the domestic law of Israel?

[The Brain]

Do the rules of war concern themselves with the question of terrorism?

[crazy canuck]

Do the rules of war concern themselves with the question of terrorism?

Minsky has already explained the protections given during conflicts within a state.

[The Brain]

Do the rules of war concern themselves with the question of terrorism?

Minsky has already explained the protections given during conflicts within a state.

Many countries have recognized Palestine. There may be a POV aspect I suppose.

[crazy canuck]

Do the rules of war concern themselves with the question of terrorism?

Minsky has already explained the protections given during conflicts within a state.

Many countries have recognized Palestine. There may be a POV aspect I suppose.

You are conflating Palestine with HAMAS, HAMAS is a terrorist organization.  Not a state.