#UN Charter Article 51

[rivage-seulm]

Imperialism, Israel, Hamas, and “Life of Brian”

Over the Thanksgiving holiday, our family watched together one of our favorite films, “Life of Brian.” It’s the comic story of Brian Cohen, a Jewish man born on the same night as Jesus of Nazareth in an adjoining stable. Like the historical Jesus (described for instance in books like Reza Aslan’s Zealot), Brian becomes part of a political resistance movement intent on expelling Roman occupiers…

[little-apricot-orchard]

Why are you an apologist for terrorists?

i think youre mistaken, i am not a zionist. hope this helps!

[superpte]

Encourage A Coup In Russia

The United Nations Charter Article 51 gives inherent right of individual or collective self-defense in the event of an attack against a UN member state.  UN member Ukraine has been attacked, we have the right to defend it.  The best thing the Russian military, and its elite Wagner PMC, can do, is a coup.  If Russian generals arrest Putin, they will redeem themselves: they will be able to argue…

[girlactionfigure]

Ok, you want to know from a lawyer why the allegation that Israel is committing genocide is false? 

Fine. 

I prefer to focus on the absurdity of the allegation, especially since it is Hamas that expressly seeks Jewish & Israeli genocide; but it's clear people want this analysis.

Genocide is defined by the 1948 UN Convention on Prevention & Punishment of the Crime of Genocide as: (1) the coordinated; (2) planned; and (3) intentional destruction, in whole or in part, of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.

Let's set aside for a minute the fact that the the #UN Convention regarding #genocide was adopted because of what the #Nazis had done to the #Jewsthereby making its invocation here not only absurdly false, but also unforgivably offensive.

That outrageousness aside, we can analyze the elements of the crime of genocide under the present situation in #Gaza.

The requisite mens rea to find a government guilty of genocide is the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a particular group of people. 

This intent to commit genocide doesn't magically come into being just because people want to believe it exists. There must be actual proof of criminal intent to destroy a particular group of people.

#SouthAfrica cannot possibly carry its burden of showing Israel "intended or intends to commit genocide"; thus, the allegation fails.  

Just some of the obvious reasons intent to commit genocide could not possibly be shown follow:

- 10/7 & Hamas' words since 10/7 have proven the #terror group would, if it could, continue carrying out massacres until it killed every #Israeli & potentially every #Jew on Earth. Israel, like every other UN member state, has the inherent right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. In this case, Israel's right to self-defense continues until it has done everything "necessary" to to ensure #Hamas can never attack Israeli civilians again because of: (1) the genocidal brutality of the #October7Massacre; (2) Hamas' 35+ years of genocidal warfare against Israel & Jews; & (3) Hamas' express & repeated commitment to repeat massacres like 10/7 "again and again." Therefore, Israel's right to self-defense includes both the right to eliminate the threat from Hamas to its civilians & to restore a sense of security to its civilians.

- The Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry claims 22,000 #Palestinians have died. Even if that number was reliable (it is not), Hamas claims every one of the deaths was a civilian, not a #HamasTerrorist. That is obviously not the case. Israel claims to have killed ~9,000 Hamas terrorists. Even assuming the Hamas numbers were correct, that would mean about 1.45 civilians have been killed for every 1 "combatant" (Hamas terrorist). As horrible as the loss of any civilian life is, it is simply a fact that civilians suffer disproportionately in war & what Israel has done in protecting civilian lives is unprecedented in the history of urban warfare. In fact, according to the UN statistics of global conflict, the average civilian to combatant killed ratio is 9 civilians killed for every 1 combatant killed. This ratio in and of itself makes the allegation of "genocide" a complete absurdity.

- Even assuming the "worst case scenario" numbers above of ~9,000 terrorists killed & ~13,000 civilians killed still does not take into account the cause of those civilian deaths. We know that somewhere between 20%-35% of all Hamas & #Palestinian #Islamic #Jihad missiles misfire & land in Gaza (like the one that landed at a Gaza hospital that Israel was wrongly accused of bombing). So, how many Gaza civilians were killed by misfired rockets from Palestinian terror groups? Suddenly, that already incredible ratio of civilians:combatants in the annals of warfare is improving even further.

- There are at least dozens of videos of Hamas #terrorists firing at #IDF troops while wearing civilian clothing (which is itself a #WarCrime) to blend in with the civilian population. So, how many Gaza "civilians" who were killed were actually just Hamas terrorists wearing #civilian clothing? That civilian:combatant ratio is improving once again.

- We know from video, reconnaissance, audio, interrogations, & eye-witness accounts (including from #Gazans themselves) that Hamas uses both voluntary & involuntary human shields to protect Hamas terrorists & their weapons (each time they do it, that is also a war crime). So, how many Gaza "civilians" who were killed were voluntarily acting as human shields for Hamas? And while Israel has made significant efforts to limit civilians casualties, those involuntary human shields who die are legally dead at the hands of Hamas. Wow, that civilian:combatant ratio is looking beyond amazing now! 

- There is video, photo, interrogation, & eye-witness accounts that Hamas uses women & children under 18 in combat roles. Therefore, not every allegedly killed woman or child counts as a "civilian." 

- What kind of genocidal army would do what Israel has been doing in engaging in massive warning campaigns before it attacks via hundreds of thousands of phone calls, text messages, leaflets, & via roof knocking? Gazans are actually given so much warning & time to evacuate that the extreme majority of "civilians" who remain in a targeted area are there either because they support Hamas or because they were forced to stay & act as human shields by Hamas. Essentially, not only is Israel obviously not conducting a genocide, it has completely eliminated their own advantage of surprise that would have helped Israel eradicate Hamas much quicker by providing warnings that reach both civilians & Hamas terrorists.

- A large percentage of Palestinian deaths in Gaza have been due to their combined use by Hamas as human shields & by Hamas' refusal to permit Gaza civilians to either to use Hamas tunnels as bomb shelters or to flee via safe corridors provided by the 

@IDF

 (what kind of genocidal army provides safe corridors for civilians even knowing some Hamas terrorists will manage to escape by blending in with the crowd???). In other words, it is Hamas that is by far the most responsible party for putting #Gazan #civilians in harm's way; and the mere fact that civilians have died is in no way indicative of any deliberate intent on the part of Israel to kill Palestinian civilians - let alone intentionally "destroy" the population, as required to prove genocide.

- A country's intention to destroy a group in whole or in part is typically found in state policy (as it was with the Nazis & as it is with Hamas). However, no such policy in Israel has ever existed. Israel has made clear repeatedly (and its actions, with some examples stated above, show this is more than just words) that its goal is to "operate[] against Hamas & other terrorist groups in Gaza, not against the civilian population ... Israel wishes no harm to civilians & is committed to addressing the humanitarian needs of those suffering ..."

- Simply, the loss of lives in Gaza are reasonably explained by & attributable to Israel's necessary self-defense military goal of eradicating Hamas' ability to make war. The loss of lives in Gaza are not, however, reasonably explained by some claimed genocide on the part of Israel, as there is no actual evidence to support a finding of the type of criminal intent required to prove genocide.

- Israel is a straight-up parliamentary #democracy; thus, it has voices in the Knesset that can be extreme. Those voices, however, are not mainstream; and, more importantly, those voices are not the ones who are responsible for prosecuting the war against Hamas. Therefore, their words (indelicate as they may have been) are irrelevant to a finding of genocide on the part of the government of Israel. The Israeli war cabinet in charge of prosecuting the war to eradicate Hamas consists of only five people: PM Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, unity coalition member, former Deputy PM, & Minister of Defense Benny Gantz, former military Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot, & Minister of Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer. Attempting to attribute the words of anyone else, especially in the very fringes of Israel's eclectic democratic government, to try to show proof of government intent to commit genocide fails as a matter of both fact & law. Any comments by the five members of the war cabinet at which any dishonest person may wish to point to try to prove "intent to commit genocide," in reality can only be reasonably interpreted as statements referring to the destruction of the Hamas terrorist regime.

So, what is the takeaway? 

It is South Africa's burden to show Israel had/has the intent to carry out a "genocide" of the Palestinian people in Gaza. For the foregoing reasons (among many others - but this is long enough for X), South Africa cannot possibly prove intent to commit genocide. 

South Africa's allegations are defamatory & are an attempt to hold the world's only Jewish State to a different standard than every other state in the history of humankind; and, perhaps worse, to try to turn the victims of a genocide into the alleged committers of a genocide. 

Were the #ICJ to find intent to commit "genocide" here, then no country on Earth would be permitted to act in self-defense in the event it is attacked - no matter how horrible the attack - if any civilians may be killed in the process. 

If that were the case, Hamas & other terrorist organizations would be given carte blanche to attack countries with impunity & then simply hide behind civilians to suddenly become entirely immune from justice. That obviously can never be the law.

Captain Allen

[eretzyisrael]

by John Spencer

Hamas forces indisputably violated multiple laws of war on October 7 in taking Israelis hostage and raping, torturing and directly targeting civilians, as well continuing to attack Israeli population centers with rockets. Years of intelligence assessments and media reports have shown that Hamas also commits war crimes by using human shields for its weapons and command centers and by purposely putting military capabilities in protected sites like hospitals, mosques and schools.

On the other hand, nothing I have seen shows that the Israel Defense Forces are not following the laws of wars in Gaza, particularly when the charges that the IDF is committing war crimes so often come too quickly for there to have been an examination of the factors that determine whether an attack, and the resulting civilian casualties, are lawful. The factors that need to be assessed are the major dimensions of the most commonly agreed to international humanitarian law principles: military necessity, proportionality, distinction, humanity and honor.  

President Joe Biden and multiple European countries, including the UK, Germany and France, are supporting Israel’s self-defense even as they express concerns over the humanitarian situation in Gaza. Though Gaza’s legal status is unresolved under international law, Israel needs no permission to enter the territory and resort to using force in order to wage defensive operations because Israel’s right to immediate and unilateral self-defense in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter is universally recognized.

Israel has pledged to obey international law, and one of its cornerstones is proportionality. The concept is often misunderstood to allow only for equal numbers of civilian casualties on both sides, with any lopsided numbers considered disproportionate. But proportionality is actually a requirement to take into account how much civilian harm is anticipated in comparison to the expected concrete and direct military advantage, according to UN protocols. In other words, a high civilian death count in Jabalya could potentially be considered legal under international law so long as the military objective is of high value. The Israel Defense Forces said the intended target in this case was the senior Hamas commander who oversaw all military operations in the northern Gaza; neutralizing him is an objective that most likely clears the proportional bar. Furthermore, Israel pointed out that the loss of life was compounded because Hamas had built tunnels that weakened the targeted structure that then collapsed in the strike.

The attack also passes muster on the level of “military necessity,” the principle that the action was necessary to pursue an allowed military goal (killing enemy troops), rather than an illegal goal (causing civilians to suffer). The IDF has said that its aim is to remove the rockets, ammunitions depot, power and transportation systems Hamas has embedded within their civilian population. So far, a number of military experts have assessed that Israel appears to be trying to follow the law of armed conflict in its Gaza campaign.

[starlightshadowsworld]

11.01.2024 The International Court of Justice says Israel's argument of "self defence" is not relevant to this case.

[Video transcript:

I should address the question of self defence. In its advisory in the war case, the court noted that the threat that Israel argued justified the construction of the war.

Was not imputable to a foreign state but ementated from the territory.

The occupied Palestinian territory, over which Israel itself exercises control.

For those reasons the court decided as a matter of international law, the right to self defence under Article 51 of the Charter. The UN Charter, had no relevance in such circumstances.

20 days ago the Security Council affirmed yet again that Gaza is occupied territory. Though Israel refers to a complete withdrawal from Gaza, it had retained control over Gaza.

Over access by land, sea and air and over key governmental functions and supplies of water and electricity.

The tightness of its grip may have varied but no one can doubt the continuous reality of Israel's grip on Gaza.

The Courts legal holding of 2004 holds good and a similar point is to be made here. What Israel is doing in Gaza, it is doing in terrority under its own control.

It's actions are enforcing it's occupation. The law on self defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter had no application.]

[mariacallous]

In one form or another, all of America’s major enemies — China, Russia, North Korea and Iran — are intervening in and taking advantage of our election.

North Korea just had its say by directly joining Russia’s invasion of Ukraine; South Korean and Ukrainian officials reported last week that some North Korean personnel, probably military engineers, were killed in Ukraine.

U.S. intelligence then declassified a report that said at least 3,000 North Korean soldiers are undergoing combat training in Russia, a development that U.S officials say could have global implications. Ukrainian intelligence places the number at 12,000.

“It’s effectively the participation of a second state in the war against Ukraine on the side of Russia,” President Volodymyr Zelensky announced to Ukraine’s Parliament.

Though Western intelligence and political leaders were clearly surprised by the deployments, they logically operationalize the Russia-North Korea strategic partnership announced in June. In that agreement, the parties pledged mutual cooperation should either come under “attack” or “armed invasion.”

The document did not specify whether it would apply to retaliatory action taken by a third country in response to aggression perpetrated by either of the parties, such as Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, or Ukraine’s recent responsive incursion into Russia’s Kursk region. But the infusion of North Korean forces in the last few weeks into the Russian-occupied territory of Ukraine, and their possible use in the Ukrainian-held part near Kursk, signifies that Moscow and Pyongyang make no distinction between offense and defense, and are acting in flagrant defiance of international law.

The Russo-North Korean pact, which Kim Jong Un insists on calling an “alliance,” cites Article 51 of the United Nations Charter as somehow validating North Korea’s intervention. But that provision affirms “the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.” It authorizes the use of defensive force by the victim of aggression and its allies — not, perversely, further offensive action by the aggressor nation that triggered the conflict in the first place.

Article 51 protects Ukraine and those who help it, not Russia and North Korea. Their invocation the article to justify expanding Russian aggression (and now North Korean aggression) against Ukraine makes a mockery of the U.N. Charter and turns on its head the principal international lesson of World War II. If left unchallenged and unchecked, it increases the chances of World War III.

National security spokesperson and former Adm. John Kirby put the matter in terms of the laws of war. “We recognize the potential danger here,” he said. If these North Korean troops are employed against Ukraine, they will become legitimate military targets.” Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin implied the North Korean intervention could have military ramifications beyond the immediate War zone: “If they’re co-belligerents — if their intention is to participate in this war on Russia’s behalf — that is a very, very serious issue. It will have impacts, not only in Europe. It will also impact things in the Indo-Pacific as well.”

That is already happening.

South Korea just announced that, given the enhanced capabilities to attack the South provided by North Korea’s participation in the Ukraine War, Seoul is seriously considering sending weapons to assist the Kyiv government’s self-defense. It is possible, depending on how North Korea reacts to that development, that at some point South Korean soldiers could also be sent to fight the North Koreans there.

Ukraine is already experiencing a reprise of Nazi-like aggression as in World War II; conflict between North and South Korea in Ukraine would also make the besieged country a proxy site for the renewal of the Korean War.

China and Russia have their strategic anti-U.S. partnership, announced in February 2022 by Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin just before the invasion of Ukraine. China and North Korea have had a “lips and teeth” diplomatic and economic partnership for decades. While Iran lacks similar formal arrangements with any of the other members of the new Axis of Evil, it engages in weapons transactions with all of them.

The other three members of the group have all provided Russia with essential weapons, munitions and other material aid, but North Korea is the first so far to provide fighting forces in support of Russia’s aggression. Yet, because of the Biden-Harris administration’s inhibiting fears of escalation, no NATO members have dispatched organized military forces to Ukraine. That may now change.

Kirby said, “We’re going to be talking to allies and partners, including Ukrainians, about what the proper next steps are going to be.”

Given Israel’s widening conflict with Iran and the demands on the West from Russia’s war with Ukraine, which existed before North Korea’s unwelcome intervention, many in the U.S., including some in Congress, may feel that America’s security circuits are already overloaded. That is a dangerous predicament even before considering the looming China threat against Taiwan.

Yet, fraught as the international situation is, there has been astonishingly little in-depth discussion of foreign policy from either Donald Trump or Kamala Harris, and a paucity of substantive questioning from the media. Over the coming weeks, members of the new Axis of Evil may have further unhappy surprises for the democratically distracted West.

[because--palestine]

Iran had legal right to counter-attack Israel in self-defense

Israel attacked Iran's embassy in Syria on April 1, in a blatant act of war. Iran had a legal right to respond in self-defense, according to article 51 of the UN Charter, which is exactly what it did by launching missiles and drone strikes on April 13. But Western governments are absurdly portraying Tehran as the aggressor.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: John Spencer

Published: Nov 7, 2023

Editor’s Note: John Spencer is chair of urban warfare studies at the Modern War Institute (MWI) at West Point, codirector of MWI’s Urban Warfare Project and host of the “Urban Warfare Project Podcast.” He served for 25 years as an infantry soldier, which included two combat tours in Iraq. He is the author of the book “Connected Soldiers: Life, Leadership, and Social Connection in Modern War” and co-author of “Understanding Urban Warfare.” The views expressed in this commentary are his own. View more opinion on CNN.

CNN — All war is hell. All war is killing and destruction, and historically civilians are inordinately the innocent victims of wars. Urban warfare is a unique type of hell not just for soldiers, who face assaults from a million windows or deep tunnels below them, but especially for civilians. Noncombatants have accounted for 90% of casualties per international humanitarian experts in the modern wars that have occurred in populated urban areas such as Iraq’s Mosul and Syria’s Raqqa, even when a Western power like the United States is leading or supporting the campaign.

The destruction and suffering, as awful as they are, don’t automatically constitute war crimes – otherwise, nearly any military action in a populated area would violate the laws of armed conflict, rules distilled from a complicated patchwork of international treaties, court rulings and historic conventions. Scenes of devastation, like Israel’s strikes on the Jabalya refugee camp in northern Gaza earlier this week, quickly spark accusations that Israel is engaging in war crimes, such as indiscriminately killing civilians and engaging in revenge attacks. But war crimes must be assessed on evidence and the standards of armed conflict, not a quick glimpse at the harrowing aftermath of an attack.

Hamas forces indisputably violated multiple laws of war on October 7 in taking Israelis hostage and raping, torturing and directly targeting civilians, as well continuing to attack Israeli population centers with rockets. Years of intelligence assessments and media reports have shown that Hamas also commits war crimes by using human shields for its weapons and command centers and by purposely putting military capabilities in protected sites like hospitals, mosques and schools.

On the other hand, nothing I have seen shows that the Israel Defense Forces are not following the laws of wars in Gaza, particularly when the charges that the IDF is committing war crimes so often come too quickly for there to have been an examination of the factors that determine whether an attack, and the resulting civilian casualties, are lawful. The factors that need to be assessed are the major dimensions of the most commonly agreed to international humanitarian law principles: military necessity, proportionality, distinction, humanity and honor. 

President Joe Biden and multiple European countries, including the UK, Germany and France, are supporting Israel’s self-defense even as they express concerns over the humanitarian situation in Gaza. Though Gaza’s legal status is unresolved under international law, Israel needs no permission to enter the territory and resort to using force in order to wage defensive operations because Israel’s right to immediate and unilateral self-defense in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter is universally recognized.

Israel has pledged to obey international law, and one of its cornerstones is proportionality. The concept is often misunderstood to allow only for equal numbers of civilian casualties on both sides, with any lopsided numbers considered disproportionate. But proportionality is actually a requirement to take into account how much civilian harm is anticipated in comparison to the expected concrete and direct military advantage, according to UN protocols. In other words, a high civilian death count in Jabalya could potentially be considered legal under international law so long as the military objective is of high value. The Israel Defense Forces said the intended target in this case was the senior Hamas commander who oversaw all military operations in the northern Gaza; neutralizing him is an objective that most likely clears the proportional bar. Furthermore, Israel pointed out that the loss of life was compounded because Hamas had built tunnels that weakened the targeted structure that then collapsed in the strike.

The attack also passes muster on the level of “military necessity,” the principle that the action was necessary to pursue an allowed military goal (killing enemy troops), rather than an illegal goal (causing civilians to suffer). The IDF has said that its aim is to remove the rockets, ammunitions depot, power and transportation systems Hamas has embedded within their civilian population. So far, a number of military experts have assessed that Israel appears to be trying to follow the law of armed conflict in its Gaza campaign.

Of the remaining principles of the law of war – distinction, humanity (which, as the International Committee of the Red Cross phrases it, “forbids the infliction of all suffering, injury or destruction not necessary for achieving the legitimate purpose of a conflict”) and honor in conduct of waging war – the principle of distinction is the most complex. Distinction requires Israel to “distinguish between the civilian population and combatants” and between civilian facilities and military targets, while taking all feasible precautions to avoid civilian casualties. So far I have seen the IDF implementing – and in some cases going beyond – many of the best practices developed to minimize the harm of civilians in similar large-scale urban battles.

These IDF practices include calling everyone in a building to alert them of a pending air strike and giving them time to evacuate – a tactic I’ve never seen elsewhere in my decades of experience, as it also notifies the enemy of the attack – and sometimes even dropping small munitions on top of a building to provide additional warning. They have been conducting multiple weeks of requests that civilians evacuate certain parts of Gaza using multi-media broadcasts, texts and flyer drops. They’ve also provided routes that will not be targeted so that civilians have paths to non-combat areas, though there have been some tragic reports that Palestinians from northern Gaza who have relocated to the south were subsequently killed as the war rages throughout the strip.

When Hamas uses a hospital, school or mosque for military purpose, it can lose its protected status and become a legal military target. Israel must still make all feasible attempts to get as many civilians out of the site as possible, but the sites don’t need to be clear of civilians before being attacked.

Unfortunately, it’s essentially impossible to empty a city of all civilians before conducting an urban battle. Some people always stay, and it can be impossible for the elderly, infirm, hospitalized and similar to evacuate. In the densely populated Gaza Strip, where most Palestinians have nowhere to fully escape the dangers of the war, the proportion of those who remain is likely to be higher, as border crossings remain closed to nearly all Gazans, many Palestinians object to leaving and Hamas has warned others not to go.

Still, even if Hamas has no interest in meeting its obligation to take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians, Israel does and should. The IDF should take steps like constraining its forces to smaller portions of larger urban areas while continuing to provide safe areas and routes out of the combat areas. It should continue its calls for civilian evacuations. It should restrict the use of air strikes and artillery near certain safe areas or gatherings of civilians. It should continue to cooperate with the US in facilitating the entry of humanitarian supplies into Gaza (though it’s reasonable to block fuel, which Hamas can use in its attacks and which the group is also stockpiling while refusing to share it with its own people).

There is no escaping that pursuing a terrorist organization touches off a nightmarish landscape of war. The visually repulsive imagery in Gaza essentially recreates the same scenes that unfolded under American and allied campaigns fighting Al Qaeda, ISIS and other terror groups, because that is what it looks like when you are forced to uproot a sadistic terror organization embedded in an urban area. Sadly, successful US-led or supported campaigns in places such as Mosul and Raqqa caused billions of dollars in damage and killed and displaced hundreds of thousands of civilians; that is the hellish reality of defeating terrorism.

Like all similar conflicts in modern times, a battle in Gaza will look like the entire city was purposely razed to the ground or indiscriminately carpet bombed – but it wasn’t. Israel possesses the military capacity to do so, and the fact that it doesn’t employ such means is further evidence that it is respecting the rules of war. It is also a sign that this is not revenge – a gross mischaracterization of Israeli aims – but instead a careful defensive campaign to ensure Israel’s survival.

==

In the international laws relating to the rules of war, certain people, places and things have protected status. Civilians have protected status (as mentioned above, uniforms are supposed to distinguish combatants from civilians). Hospitals and schools have protected status. Medical equipment has protected status.

But protected status can be forfeited. When a Gaza citizen picks up a weapon and starts firing it at the IDF, they lose protected status. When Hamas fires rockets from a school, it loses protected status. If a doctor uses medical equipment as a weapon, the doctor and the equipment both lose protected status.

This is why the October 7 attacks were a terrorist attack, not "freedom fighting" or "justified resistance." They didn't attack military targets. They attacked Israeli civilians. Some of the targets fought back as a result of the attack, and many Israelis rushed to the locations of the attacks to fight the terrorists off. But at the time they were initiated, the Israelis had protected status. That's why it was an illegitimate, illegal terrorist action.

There's no such thing as an "innocent civilian." There are civilians and there are combatants. There are no subclasses of "guilty civilians" or "innocent civilians." A combatant doesn't have to be a member of the military - or in the case of Gaza, a member of the Hamas terrorist regime. The doctor who uses the medical equipment as a weapon becomes a combatant.

Everyone's seen the videos of Gazans chanting that they support Hamas and are determined to destroy Israel. They don't have to be members of Hamas; if they make good on their chanted threat, they become fair game. Through their own actions.

Keep that in mind when you hear the wails of the mythical "genocide" that's supposedly going on, the "civilians" being killed. Undoubtedly there will be actual civilians, which is unfortunate but a fact of war.

But there will be plenty of citizens who crossed over and lost their protected status as combatants instead. By making themselves combatants. If Hamas were concerned about "civilian deaths" - they're not, and they proudly state that they love death - they would take great pains to ensure citizens were not taking action, to prevent them from losing their protected status.

Israel does not have to hold their fire on combatants just because they're Gazan citizens rather than members of Hamas. Because even if they're citizens, they're not necessarily civilians.

[rivage-seulm]

Thank God for Hamas: The Agent of God’s Revelation

Readings for the Thirtieth Sunday in Ordinary Time: Exodus 22: 20-26; Psalm 18, 2-4, 47, 51; 1 Thessalonians 1: 5c-10; Matthew 22: 34-40 Thank God for Hamas. Yes, thank God for Hamas. There, I said it. And thank God for the Judeo-Christian and Islamic traditions which enable discerning people of faith to see what Hamas is up to. Hamas is lifting the veil to help us see who’s responsible for…

[yumemeng]

"For those reasons, the court has decided that the right of self-defense...had no relevance in such circumstances...The lore on self-defense under article 51 of the UN charter has no application"

Transcript:

"I shall address the question of self-defense. In its advisory opinion in the Wall case, the court noted that the threat that Israel had argued justified the construction of the wall was not imputable to a foreign state, but emanated from territory, the occupied Palestinian territory, over which Israel exercises control. For those reasons, the court has decided that the right of self-defense under article 51 of the charter, the UN charter, had no relevance in such circumstances. 20 days ago, the Security Council affirmed yet again that Gaza is occupied territory.

Though Israel refers to a complete withdrawal from Gaza, it has retained control over Gaza; over access by land, sea, and air, and over key governmental functions and supplies of water and electricity. he tightens of its grip may have varied but no one can doubt the continuous reality of Israel's grip on Gaza ... What Israel is doing in Gaza, it is doing in territory under its own control. Its actions are enforcing its occupation. The lore on self-defense under article 51 of the UN charter has no application"

South Africa and Yemen are literally the only people doing something to stop this genocide.

[tomorrowusa]

[P]ressuring Ukraine to accept an agreement against its will would have serious global consequences. Russia would conclude that aggressive warfare should remain in its geopolitical toolbox. After a few years have passed and it has regained its military strength, it might double down and assert new territorial claims in Europe and Eurasia as it continues to stir up conflicts in Africa and elsewhere.

Moreover, an unjust peace would fuel hatred, resentment, and revanchist tendencies in Ukrainian society, hampering reconstruction and reconciliation, while Russian society would once again be spared from having to engage in sorely needed self-reflection. At the same time, tensions in Europe and around the world would remain high, undercutting global economic development efforts as well as international cooperation on other crucial issues.

More broadly, Russian disregard for international law would cast serious doubt on the viability of the twenty-first-century rules-based international order. If a nuclear-armed permanent member of the UN Security Council can invade a sovereign country and unilaterally annex its territories, the existing order will have failed its biggest test.

– Pekka Haavisto, foreign minister of Finland from 2019 to 2023, writing at Project Syndicate. (archived)

The only reasonable lasting outcome of this conflict is for Russia's invasion to be a failure. Russia broke already existing treaties and agreements with its invasion. Only a mental defective believes that Russia would abide by any new "negotiated" agreement that leaves Russia in control of vast swatches of Ukraine.

One of the many agreements which Putin broke is the United Nations Charter. In his article Mr. Haavisto referenced Article 51 of the UN Charter.

Russia has used its veto at the Security Council to prevent any direct UN action against its aggression. So the "inherent right of individual or collective self-defence" of Ukraine with support of its allies continues – and should continue.

When a conflict is not settled justly and judiciously then the possibility of a subsequent conflict greatly increases. The mess at the end of World War I eventually led to World War II.

If you want long term peace and respect for international law, then support Ukraine in its just fight against an imperialist and genocidal neighbor.

[self-hating-zionist]

BREAKING: OFFICIAL STATEMENT FROM IRANIAN PERMANENT MISSION TO UN REGARDING THE ATTACK FROM IRAN ON ISRAEL

“Iran’s invocation of Article 51 of the UN Charter occurred following a 13-day period marked by the Security Council’s inaction and silence, coupled with its failure to condemn the Israeli regime’s aggressions. Certain countries’ precipitous condemnation of Iran’s exercise of its legitimate right suggests a reversal of roles, equating the victim with the criminal.”

[donotlookaway]

I saw an interesting video and I start searching for sources:

So this is the Article 51 that Israel and everyone else is citing to argue Israel's right to defend itself:

“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.” [X]

All right?

But then we have this one thing: Advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

And in its 139 paragraph you'll find this:

139. Under the terms of Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations:

“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”

Article 51 of the Charter thus recognizes the existence of an inherent right of self-defence in the case of armed attack by one State against another State.  However, Israel does not claim that the attacks against it are imputable to a foreign State.

The Court also notes that Israel exercises control in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and that, as Israel itself states, the threat which it regards as justifying the construction of the wall originates within, and not outside, that territory.  The situation is thus different from that contemplated by Security Council resolutions 1368 (2001) and 1373 (2001), and therefore Israel could not in any event invoke those resolutions in support of its claim to be exercising a right of self-defence.

Consequently, the Court concludes that Article 51 of the Charter has no relevance in this case." [X]

Of course the Israeli position is that it no longer occupies Gaza, as Israel does not exercise effective control or authority over any land or institutions inside the Gaza Strip (we know how they control it though), but they also don't recognize Palestine as an State!

BUT even more:

The UN says "Asked about the status of Gaza, the Spokesperson said that under resolutions adopted by both the Security Council and the General Assembly on the Middle East Peace Process, the Gaza Strip continues to be regarded as part of the occupied Palestinian Territory. He said the United Nations would accordingly continue to refer to the Gaza Strip as part of the occupied Palestinian Territory until such time as either the General Assembly or the Security Council take a different view." [X]

So the UN still classifies Gaza as Occupied Territory.

Therefore, that Article 51 they keep citing?... Is not applicable to Israel in this case. Israel has no right to defend itself from occupied forces under international law.

More relevant reading here Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

[labbaik-ya-hussain-as]

𝐀 𝐂𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐑𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦: 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐚 𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐄𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝

The Secretary-General of the United Nations António Guterres, has, once again, issued a humanitarian plea for an absolute ceasefire to end the ongoing genocide in Gaza of unarmed civilians, mostly children, men and women.

I posit that the proposal should entail the President of the Security Council, currently José Javier de la Gasca Domez Dominguez, representing Ecuador, implementing Articles 39 through 51 of the United Nations Charter.

Further, after thorough reading of the entire Charter, a critical point emerges.

The United Nations comprises 193 members out of the 197 states it recognizes.

Yet, its Security Council consists of only 15 members, including 5 permanent members.

According to Article 27-3, decisions on behalf of the Security Council require an affirmative vote from nine members, or 60%, inclusive of the concurring votes of all 5 permanent members.

This structure necessitates reform.

In 1945, when the United Nations Charter was adopted, the global landscape was markedly different, with the gradual decline of the British Empire and the rise of the United States of North America as the economic and cultural epicenter.

However, from its inception, the Security Council has presented a glaring contradiction to the UN Charter.

This contradiction is more apparent today: the concept of a Security Council fundamentally contradicts the principles enshrined in the UN Charter.

To illustrate, let me cite from the Charter’s Preamble: "𝙒𝙀 𝙏𝙃𝙀 𝙋𝙀𝙊𝙋𝙇𝙀𝙎 𝙊𝙁 𝙏𝙃𝙀 𝙐𝙉𝙄𝙏𝙀𝘿 𝙉𝘼𝙏𝙄𝙊𝙉𝙎 𝘿𝙀𝙏𝙀𝙍𝙈𝙄𝙉𝙀𝘿 [...] 𝙩𝙤 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙛𝙛𝙞𝙧𝙢 𝙛𝙖𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙞𝙣 𝙛𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙖𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙡 𝙝𝙪𝙢𝙖𝙣 𝙧𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩𝙨, 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙙𝙞𝙜𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙩𝙝 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙝𝙪𝙢𝙖𝙣 𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙤𝙣, 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙚𝙦𝙪𝙖𝙡 𝙧𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙢𝙚𝙣 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙬𝙤𝙢𝙚𝙣 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙤𝙛 𝙣𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙡𝙖𝙧𝙜𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙨𝙢𝙖𝙡𝙡 [...]."

Furthermore, Article 2, principle number 1, states, "𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙊𝙧𝙜𝙖𝙣𝙞𝙯𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙞𝙨 𝙗𝙖𝙨𝙚𝙙 𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙞𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙞𝙜𝙣 𝙚𝙦𝙪𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙤𝙛 𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙞𝙩𝙨 𝙈𝙚𝙢𝙗𝙚𝙧𝙨."

The idea of permanent Security Council members or a Security Council itself implies that the interests of five nations outweigh those of the other 188.

For genuine international conflict resolution, a new paradigm is necessary: every nation must be represented equally and have equal voting rights.

The requirement for a 60% affirmative vote to make decisions on behalf of the General Assembly, ensuring the support of 116 nations, aligns more closely with the ideals of the 21st century, a time anticipated to be an era of enhanced mutual respect, understanding, and progress for all.

[normal-thoughts-official]

Interesting interview with Francesca Albanese, UN special rappirteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, for those who want to understand the legal standing of Israel and Hamas:

“The right to self-defense that Israel has invoked under Article 51 of the UN Charter is quite clear. It entitles a state to repel an attack that comes from another state. So, the action necessary to repel the attack must be based on its intensity and scope. And it must be proportional.”

[...] “There is jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice that says that self-defense cannot apply in a context of military occupation when, in this case, Israel is occupying another state, another people.”

[...] “In 24, 30 hours, Israel had regained control of its territory. So, as of then, the right of self-defense in its own territory — if self-defense is to be applied — was exhausted.”

[...]

“What Hamas did on Oct. 7 goes beyond what legitimate resistance is, because the massacre of civilians is never justified, cannot be justified. Hamas is to blame for the brutal killing of civilians, because in a context of hostilities, while military targets are legitimate, and killing a soldier is a tragedy, killing a civilian is a war crime. Killing civilians is absolutely prohibited.”

[The link has videos of the interview, all with CC, as well as a written summary of its contents]