Israel-Hamas War 2023

[Admiral Yi]

Under international law, states have the monopoly of legitimate organized violence.

This statement confuses me.  What are the consequences under international law of employing illegitimate organized violence?

Obviously that is a tenet of every country's *domestic* law, but I don't see how international law even comes into the question of rebellions and civil wars and wars of liberation.

[crazy canuck]

Many countries have recognized Palestine.

I will give you a hint to help you along.  Many of those same countries have declared Hamas to be a terrorist organization.  Is the penny starting to drop?

Are you really trying to say Hamas was not the government of Gaza when it orchestrated the Oct 7 attacks?

Nope, what I am really trying to say is that Hamas was and is not the government of the Palestinians.

[crazy canuck]

Many countries have recognized Palestine.

I will give you a hint to help you along.  Many of those same countries have declared Hamas to be a terrorist organization.  Is the penny starting to drop?

Are you really trying to say Hamas was not the government of Gaza when it orchestrated the Oct 7 attacks?

That's been CC's point since day 1.

Nope, my point since day 1 is that Hamas does not equal the Palestinians and the Palestinians do not equal Hamas.

Even if one accepts that Hamas is a legitimate political party (which they are not, they are a terrorist organization) they certainly do not represent all Palestinians. 

And even if one accepts that Hamas represents all Palestinians within Gaza, which is also not true, they do not represent Palestinians outside Gaza.

[Iormlund]

And even if one accepts that Hamas represents all Palestinians within Gaza, which is also not true,

I don't follow.

Do you think the NSDAP did not represent all Germans?

[grumbler]

It's not because of who they are though.  Hamas, as the de facto government of Gaza.

Not just de facto. They won the 2006 elections.

Hamas didn't run any candidates in the 2006 elections. The party that won a plurality of the vote, and later ceded power to the political wing of Hamas, was not itself Hamas and many members of that Reform Party resigned when Hamas declared war on the PA.  Hamas won no elections and cannot claim power by any right other than the right of conquest.

[grumbler]

Under international law, states have the monopoly of legitimate organized violence.

This statement confuses me.  What are the consequences under international law of employing illegitimate organized violence?

Obviously that is a tenet of every country's *domestic* law, but I don't see how international law even comes into the question of rebellions and civil wars and wars of liberation.

Under customary international law, states are supposed to have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.  What counts as a state is the question.  If the Binky Party of Blurgistan declares that they are the legitimate government of the new state of Binkistan, independent of Blurgistan, they only get considered as a state by customary international law if they succeed in getting sufficient recognition as such by other nations ("sufficient" being undefined but "you know it when you see it"). The conflicting claims of sovereignty by Binkistan and Blurgistan can only be resolved by treaty, whether before a war of after it.

Treaty International Law regarding the Rules of Armed Conflict involve only the behavior of the combatants, not their political status. If you act like a legit army, you get treated like one.  If you don't, then you are criminals and have no status under international treaty law.

[crazy canuck]

And even if one accepts that Hamas represents all Palestinians within Gaza, which is also not true,

I don't follow.

Do you think the NSDAP did not represent all Germans?

I don't think any useful comparison could be made to a government duly elected under a liberal Democratic political system with a terrorist organization who rules through fear and coercion.

Do you have a compelling argument as to why I should equate the two?

[viper37]

I'm hard pressed to think what possible target is worth the amount of civilian deaths.

How many civilian deaths would Nasrallah be worth? Sinwar? A lieutenant? A weapons depot? a communications centre? A rocket launcher? A random militant?

How many Israeli civilians deaths would be justified to get at Netanyahu or any political and military leaders of Israel?

After all, the Prime Minister is surrounded at all times by civilians, lives and work in a city of civilians, guarded by a strong military.  If Hamas could deliver a large explosive device near the Israeli parliament, should they do it?  Any other organization or country at war with Israel is allowed to?

[Razgovory]

Many countries have recognized Palestine.

I will give you a hint to help you along.  Many of those same countries have declared Hamas to be a terrorist organization.  Is the penny starting to drop?

Are you really trying to say Hamas was not the government of Gaza when it orchestrated the Oct 7 attacks?

That's been CC's point since day 1.

Nope, my point since day 1 is that Hamas does not equal the Palestinians and the Palestinians do not equal Hamas.

Even if one accepts that Hamas is a legitimate political party (which they are not, they are a terrorist organization) they certainly do not represent all Palestinians. 

And even if one accepts that Hamas represents all Palestinians within Gaza, which is also not true, they do not represent Palestinians outside Gaza.

Ah, so if the Israelis requested extradition of the perpetrators of the October 6th attack who should they have asked?

[Razgovory]

And even if one accepts that Hamas represents all Palestinians within Gaza, which is also not true,

I don't follow.

Do you think the NSDAP did not represent all Germans?

I don't think any useful comparison could be made to a government duly elected under a liberal Democratic political system with a terrorist organization who rules through fear and coercion.

Do you have a compelling argument as to why I should equate the two?

So perhaps a better example would be the Communist party of the Soviet Union who came to power in a coup.

[Iormlund]

I'm hard pressed to think what possible target is worth the amount of civilian deaths.

How many civilian deaths would Nasrallah be worth? Sinwar? A lieutenant? A weapons depot? a communications centre? A rocket launcher? A random militant?

How many Israeli civilians deaths would be justified to get at Netanyahu or any political and military leaders of Israel?

After all, the Prime Minister is surrounded at all times by civilians, lives and work in a city of civilians, guarded by a strong military.  If Hamas could deliver a large explosive device near the Israeli parliament, should they do it?  Any other organization or country at war with Israel is allowed to?

Yes?

I can't remember anyone lamenting the attempt to drone-bomb Netanhayu's residence in Cesarea a week or so ago.

The rules of war are not there to make war impossible to wage. They are there to make it less bloody.
If they made war so hard as to be impractical no country would have signed them.

[Iormlund]

And even if one accepts that Hamas represents all Palestinians within Gaza, which is also not true,

I don't follow.

Do you think the NSDAP did not represent all Germans?

I don't think any useful comparison could be made to a government duly elected under a liberal Democratic political system with a terrorist organization who rules through fear and coercion.

Do you have a compelling argument as to why I should equate the two?

So perhaps a better example would be the Communist party of the Soviet Union who came to power in a coup.

Or any other, honestly.

I was trying to find out if CC thinks a government only represents those that support it, because to me that is puzzling. I'm represented by PM Sánchez, whether I like it or not.

[viper37]

I'm hard pressed to think what possible target is worth the amount of civilian deaths.

How many civilian deaths would Nasrallah be worth? Sinwar? A lieutenant? A weapons depot? a communications centre? A rocket launcher? A random militant?

How many Israeli civilians deaths would be justified to get at Netanyahu or any political and military leaders of Israel?

After all, the Prime Minister is surrounded at all times by civilians, lives and work in a city of civilians, guarded by a strong military.  If Hamas could deliver a large explosive device near the Israeli parliament, should they do it?  Any other organization or country at war with Israel is allowed to?

Yes?

I can't remember anyone lamenting the attempt to drone-bomb Netanhayu's residence in Cesarea a week or so ago.

The rules of war are not there to make war impossible to wage. They are there to make it less bloody.
If they made war so hard as to be impractical no country would have signed them.

You miss the point.

The point you make is that you don't mind the sacrifice of thousands of Palestinians civilians if it let Israel be rid of Hamas leader.

The attack on Netanyahu was labeled as a terror act by Israel, which it retaliated against, as usual, by bombing civilians.

What if, there's an explosion in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, to kill a VIP Israeli target, at the costs of thousands of Israeli civilians?

Will that be labeled as a just act of war or a terrorist action?

Was the part of 9/11 that attacked the Congress and Pentagon a terror act or a legitimate act of war?
I kinda lump them all in the same boat, but if you want to make a distinction...

[Iormlund]

Was the part of 9/11 that attacked the Congress and Pentagon a terror act or a legitimate act of war?
I kinda lump them all in the same boat, but if you want to make a distinction...

I do.

But I wouldn't use terror act. Simply illegitimate.

A missile attack on the Pentagon or Congress would've been a legitimate act of war (as far as I'm concerned).
Same thing goes for the attack on Netanyahu's residence, Nasrallah's bunker, Iran's missile salvo earlier last month or the Oct 7 attack on IDF bases on the border with Gaza.

But using civilian airliners as weapons made the attack on the Pentagon illegitimate (not to mention the WTC being a target). Same goes for firing rockets indiscriminately at cities. Or enslaving or murdering anyone on sight.



Note that war itself can be illegitimate as well (see the invasion of Ukraine). So even if individual acts are ok in my book, it doesn't mean I support or condone them.

I simply think some actions are worse than others. And deliberately targeting or exposing civilians is pretty high on my "fuck no" list.

[Admiral Yi]

The point you make is that you don't mind the sacrifice of thousands of Palestinians civilians if it let Israel be rid of Hamas leader.

You've divorced yourself from fact.