#no distinction between civilians and military?

[agenericplaceholdername]

Reminder that the Craglings are intelligent beings who have their own society and even poetry, and Wu and Garmadon respond to them by immediately attacking. The biggest crime the Craglings committed was walking slowly toward them WITH THEIR HANDS UP.

Will they re-form later? Hopefully, but for the Spinjitzu Brothers, murdering innocent rock people is just an average day.

You have to wonder where Lloyd got his "all life has value" ideology from because it clearly wasn't his father or mentor.

[satellitebroadcast]

BOMBING OF BEIRUT:

The number of martyrs in the zionist bombing of the southern suburb of Beirut increased to 14. Over 66 are wounded and several are missing, including a number of young children. Rescue operations are continuing.

Lebanese Ministry of Health: Rescue teams expect to find more bodies under the rubble.

Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine:

The occupation's raid on the southern suburb [of Beirut] in Lebanon is a new crime that will not weaken the resistance's resolve The Popular Front confirmed that the occupation's bombing of residential buildings in the southern suburb of the Lebanese capital, Beirut, today, Friday, is a new crime added to the record of crimes of its terrorist army and its criminal fascist government. The Front reiterated its full solidarity with the Lebanese people, its resistance, the resistance leadership and its cradle in confronting the zionist terrorist aggression and the ongoing and increasing crimes of genocide. The Front stressed that the enemy's crimes and the expansion of the war of genocide leave no choice for our nation and the peoples of the region with all its components but resistance and fighting with all available tools. What we are witnessing is a battle to defend our destiny and existence. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine Central Media Department September 20, 2024

Hamas:

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful We, in the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), condemn the brutal terrorist aggression carried out by the enemy's "israeli" warplanes against the southern suburb of Beirut, targeting a densely populated residential area, which resulted in the martyrdom of several people and injuries to others. We consider this a new crime in the ongoing series of zionist crimes, a violation of Lebanese sovereignty, and an escalation of zionist aggression. What the occupying government is doing by escalating its aggression and intensifying airstrikes on residential neighborhoods, or by detonating civilian communication means to cause the highest number of casualties, without distinction between military and civilian in Lebanon, or the brutal massacres and acts of genocide in Gaza and aggression in the West Bank, is a blatant violation of all humanitarian rules, norms, and international laws and agreements. These are described war crimes that require urgent action from the international community to stop them and hold the perpetrators accountable. We extend our support to our brothers in Hezbollah and the Islamic Resistance, affirming our full solidarity with them. We value their courageous stances and their determination to uphold national, religious, and humanitarian values by continuing the struggle to support our people in Gaza. We affirm that this fascist aggression will not succeed in achieving any of its goals, and the resistance will continue on its path until complete liberation and freedom and the elimination of the zionist project in the region. The Islamic Resistance Movement – Hamas Thursday: 17 Rabi' al-Awwal 1446 AH Corresponding to: September 20, 2024

[killerpancakeburger]

Soap giving you a massage...

TAGS: Soap x GN! Reader, Fluff, a bit suggestive, Civilian! Reader, Anxious! Reader, mention of chronic pain.

WORD COUNT: 750

A/N: Trying out a new format! But with a bit of a story in the middle lol.

Soap who notice you tend to roll your shoulders, stretch your neck, and pinch the muscles there at the end of the workday. You explain that, being an anxious kind of person and working at a desk, you end up with neck, shoulders and back pains on a daily basis, despite correcting your position and stretching regularly. Massages are the best remedy but they don't exactly come cheap, and trying to do them to yourself just isn’t the same.

Soap who look up massage videos and ask some tips to the military physiotherapists provided by the army.

Soap who tries to practice on his teammates of the Task Force. Price being the most sore out of them, he agrees quickly. Gaz does too after some begging. Ghost resists until he learns it's for your own benefit, only then he relents.

Soap who show up five minutes before the end of your shift to be sure to catch you, taking in your grimace of pain as you stretch out. 

Soap who enters your office casually and asks how your day's been going with a bright grin, hardly containing his enthusiasm at the idea of surprising you with his “gift”.

Soap who take advantage of the fact that after greeting him, your eyes return to your computer screen while you're turning it off, and easily sneak behind you.

“Ya sore?”

“Same as usual,” you shrug.

“How ‘bout this?” he questions, putting his hands on your shoulders and pressing his thumbs in your trapezius muscles in a circling motion.

You tense at first. The contact is not unwelcome per se, but it is unexpected, so you can’t help but stiffen.

“Johnny, what are you doing?”

“Helping,” he pouts. “Does it not feel good?”

You stay silent, focusing on the contact.

His hands are deliciously warm; his fingers are gentle, yet firm enough to really be felt. His touch is stronger than yours, but it's a good thing. Pulling, pushing, pressing, kneading skin and muscles.

Common sense would dictate you put an end to this compromising situation right now, but the treatment feels too good to stop. 

Concentrating on the dance of his fingers and the relief they bring to your aching muscles makes it hard not to give in; to close your eyes and forget about what isn’t his hands on your skin.

You come back to reality when he calls out your name. You hum in response.

He chuckles at your reaction.

A carefree, warm kind of sound, distinctively Soap in nature, that you were always fond of; but when echoed so close to your ear, it sends a shiver of pleasure down your spine, a twist in your stomach, a throbbing between your legs.

“Take it ye like it then?”

His tone is pleased, playful.

Your face bursts into flames as you realize his proximity; eager fingers digging into your skin, clever mouth a breath away from your ear, his sultry voice caressing you everywhere at once, baryton smooth like silk. It is a small mercy that he's standing behind your back, sparing you from his piercing blue eyes; a mercy that he can’t see how flustered he made you.

“Gimme some reviews. Don't hold back, Ah can take it.”

You bite your lower lip at that sentence, I can take it, holding back from asking what else he can take from you, as a taunt.

“It's great. You’re doing great,” you reply flatly, trying to sound unaffected. 

“That's it? I know ye have a better way with words.”

Teasing and feigned sulkiness interlace in his comment.

Soap who cheekly mentions that he purchased a massage oil, but if you prefer to keep your clothes on, it's fine.

Soap who respects your boundaries, kneading the sore spot in your lower back without going one centimeter lower.

Soap who hardly contains his comments but enjoys silently how malleable you are in his hands, how your eyes are closed under his ministrations like a cat, the way you hum in pleasure every now and then.

Soap who suggests you take a nap in his bed before heading home after seeing how blissed out and groggy you are after he's done with you.

Soap who's been pining after you for a while and, after all the touching, all the noises you made, and the kiss on the cheek you gave him as thank you when he wasn’t awaiting it, needs to excuse himself to the bathroom to take care of the problem in his pants.

[betweenstorms]

Alright, hear me out, Simon Riley working for Sleep Token as their head of security.

Let me explain.

His life had always been defined by precision and control, by the kind of discipline that didn’t falter in the face of chaos. But retirement had come swiftly and unceremoniously, a necessity more than a choice. The regimented life of the SAS had ended, leaving him adrift in the civilian world, and that felt far more alien than any hostile territory he’d ever set foot in.

Somehow he found himself in the chaotic underbelly of the entertainment industry, a space filled with the metallic clatter of stagehands, the distant roar of soundchecks, and the pulse of a metal band steadily climbing the ladder to global fucking acclaim. And hell, the stage lights, the screaming crowds, the thrum of bass reverberating through his chest, none of it had ever factored into the life he’d imagined for himself.

But life had a funny way of taking plans and shredding them into something unrecognisable.

Simon still wasn’t sure how he’d ended up here.

When he left the military he thought he’d bury himself in some quiet corner of anonymity, far from the public eye. Civvy life was cruel to men like him, and for months, he drifted between meaningless gigs, his skill set too sharp for ordinary work, too lethal for the mundane.

Then came the call.

Sleep Token’s manager had been a contact of a contact, someone who knew someone who’d served with him, someone who’d heard about him through the strange network of ex-military types finding unconventional second careers. The irony hadn’t been lost on Simon when he was first approached. A band draped in anonymity, each member masked and named only by cryptic titles, needed security. And who better to protect them than a man who’d spent his life hiding behind his own mask?

Fucking unbelievable.

Somehow Simon had ticked every box without realising it, and before he knew it, he was standing in a smoky room, hands tucked into the pockets of his faded jeans as he sized up the bloody Muppet Show who would earn his salary.

He’d scoffed at the absurdity of it back then.

It wasn’t his scene. Far from it.

And yet, something in him, a combination of pragmatism and the faint flicker of intrigue, told him to give it a shot. He was financially screwed anyway. And the pay was good, much better than what he earned as a high-ranking officer, the anonymity suited him just fine, and the job, strangely enough, kind of aligned with his skill set. Therefore, after a few days of mulling it over, he said yes.

Simon had learned to adapt quickly. This job—head of security, an overqualified bodyguard as he liked to call it—had its own rhythm, distinct but no less intense than the one he’d lived before.

Venues became his battlefields, and he mapped them with a soldier’s precision. Potential threats were assessed the way he’d once scoped out enemy positions. His vigilance rarely wavered, whether he was walking the perimeter of a festival or standing stoic in a dim corridor as Vessel rehearsed another one of his verses. To Simon, these kinds of threats were laughable compared to the ones he’d faced during his service, however, it wasn’t without its challenges. Crowds could be unpredictable, and fame had a way of drawing out the unhinged.

He took to his duties with the same precision and discipline he’d honed in the SAS. The members trusted him implicitly, and that trust was something Simon didn’t take lightly. They called him Riley and treated him like a constant, the way you’d treat the sun rising or the tide coming in.

Reliable, steady, unshakable.

At first, the job was simple enough. The usual security gig, albeit with a touch of bloody theatricality. However, fame has a way of turning everything upside down, even for someone like Simon.

It started subtly.

Fans started to notice him too. At first, it was just a handful of comments on social media, like “Who’s the guy in the black balaclava?”, but it grew from there. They were fascinated by him, by the idea of a masked man guarding a masked band. He was an enigma within an enigma, and the internet just loved enigmas. It wasn’t until Lynsey Ward, one of the backup vocalists, shoved her phone in his face one day that he realised how far it had gone.

The backstage in Paris hummed with a peculiar kind of energy and anticipation that Simon had grown accustomed to since taking the job. It was a strange but one of a kind lifestyle, this one, filled with hurried footsteps, clinking equipment, and the muffled roar of soundchecks vibrating through walls. Simon lingered near the members as they cycled through their usual pre-show rituals.

IV sat in a corner, his mask tilted upward as if in contemplation, while Vessel sprawled on a battered sofa, his makeup halfway done, face a patchwork of metallic hues. II drummed his fingers idly on his thighs, the rhythmic taps almost lost beneath the din, while III sat near the makeup station, enjoying the rare moment of downtime between soundcheck, preparations and the main show, reading something on his phone.

Simon leaned against the wall, arms crossed over his chest, his black balaclava masking his expression but not the faint lines of tension in his shoulders.

His sharp eyes swept over the room, mentally running through his usual checklist again that concerned necessary security measures. Entry points, exits, personnel movements, everything was accounted for, everything secure. The monotony of the job had become second nature to him, though he still approached each night like it might unravel at any moment.

Lynsey sat nearby, waiting for her turn in the makeup chair. She was scrolling on her phone, just like almost everyone in the room, one leg crossed over the other, her posture relaxed but her smile mischievous. Simon didn’t notice her at first, he had his priorities, but her voice cut through the quiet hum of activity like a knife.

“Riley,” she called out, her tone playful. “You’ve got to see this.”

Simon didn’t move.

“Busy,” he muttered, his voice low and even.

Lynsey ignored him entirely, already rising from her seat and crossing the room with her phone in hand. “Come on, just watch,” she insisted, shoving the screen toward him. The glow of the phone illuminated her face, her grin widening as she anticipated his reaction.

Simon sighed, an irritated, tired sound that came from somewhere deep in his chest.

“What now?”

Reluctantly, Simon uncrossed his toned arms and stepped forward, his towering frame casting a shadow over her. The screen showed a video, a quick montage of him, no less. Snippets of him walking through crowds, standing by the stage, his balaclava catching the light just so as if he were a character in some fucking noir film. The background music swelled dramatically, and captions popped up over the footage, saying “If I ever get kicked out of a venue, it better be by HIM. Imagine getting manhandled by those arms.”

Simon blinked, his frown deepening beneath the mask.

“The hell’s this?” he asked, his tone flat but tinged with suspicion.

“It’s a thirst trap,” Lynsey said, as if that explained everything, her laughter barely contained.

Simon stared at her blankly. “The fuck's a thirst trap?”

Lynsey cackled, delighted. “Oh, you’re a relic, aren’t you? It’s a thing on TikTok. People post these little edits when they fancy someone. And let me tell you, mate, there are loads of these floating about. Like, ‘look at this mysterious bloke, isn’t he fit?’ That sort of thing.”

Simon’s eyes narrowed. “TikTok?”

From across the room, III chimed in, his grin wicked as he leaned back in his seat. “Nowhere to hide, Riley,” he said, his tone teasing. “You’re a proper celebrity now.”

Simon huffed through his nose, a sound that carried more weight than words. He glanced at the phone again, now firmly lodged in Lynsey’s outstretched hand, the screen flashing more of his edited movements cut and spliced into dramatic slow-motion. He stepped back slightly, folding his arms across his broad chest once more, muttering something about “kids and their bollocks” under his breath as he did.

Lynsey quipped, her grin only widening. “Face it, the internet’s gone mad for you. They’ve even got a hashtag—‘#SecurityDaddy.’”

Simon flinched, his head snapping back toward her like she’d just admitted to committing a war crime.

This made IV join the fray, a water bottle in hand as he ambled over. “Oi, show us the goods. I wanna see what’s got good ol’ Riley in a strop.”

Lynsey eagerly turned her phone to IV, who leaned over her shoulder, squinting at the screen with a wide grin already forming on his painted face. The video played again, the dramatic slow-motion edits of Simon walking through a crowd, his balaclava catching the stage lights as though he’d been directed by a Hollywood cinematographer.

IV let out a sharp laugh, nearly choking on his water.

“Well, I’ll be damned,” he said, wiping his mouth with the back of his hand, leaving a trail of black paint on them. “‘Security Daddy,’ they’re callin’ you? That’s golden.”

Lynsey snorted and held up another video. “Oh, you’ve got no idea. Look at this one, ‘If he told me to leave the venue, I’d say thank you.’ And here’s another, ‘Is it weird to want to be tackled by him?’ You’ve got your own bloody fanbase, Riley.”

Simon’s gloved hand scrubbed down his masked face as if he could physically push away the madness unfolding around him. “You lot are takin’ the piss.”

“This one’s my favourite,” Lynsey said, clicking on yet another video. The screen lit up with a heavily edited montage of Simon in action—his eyes scanning a crowd, his broad shoulders cutting through a sea of fans, the flash of his gloved hand directing someone to stand back. The video was captioned with “I don’t know his name, but he can ruin my life anytime.”

Vessel, who’d been silent for most of the exchange, finally sat up, resting his elbows on his knees as he regarded their head of security with an amused expression. “It’s the mask, mate,” he stated. “It's like catnip. People project onto what they can’t see. You could lean into it, y’know. Like us. Give the people what they want. Maybe throw in a wink next time you’re standin’ by the stage.”

Simon sent Vessel a look so sharp it could have peeled paint off the walls.

II, who had been leaning casually against the wall next to them, joined in with a huge grin. “Yeah, might as well embrace it. You’re part of the act now.”

Simon’s glare intensified. “You wanna end up wearin’ your fuckin’ drumsticks where the sun don’t shine?”

II raised his hands in mock surrender, though the grin never left his face. “Don’t tempt me.” 

The banter escalated quickly after that.

The room practically buzzed with the gleeful chaos that Simon’s presence had unwittingly unleashed. IV was now scrolling through the comments on one of the fan edits, reading them aloud to the room with unbridled glee, each of them taking the piss out of him in the way only people comfortable with each other could.

Strangely enough, it reminded him of Johnny, a familiar mix of camaraderie and mischief that tugged at a memory he hadn’t expected to surface. It stirred an unexpected pang of nostalgia in Simon, a faint echo of Johnny’s effortless knack for turning every moment into a laugh at someone else’s expense—usually his.

“He could snap me like a glow stick and I’d thank him for the privilege,’” II read out loud, barely containing his laughter. “Oh, this one’s pure gold—‘Not to be dramatic, but I would sell my soul just to hear him say ‘move along’ in person.’”

That did it.

Simon unfolded from the wall with a deliberate grace, his imposing presence rippling through the room like a cold wind sweeping across still water. The breadth of his shoulders, the unyielding lines of his form clad in black, cast him less as a mere bodyguard and more as some silent, vengeful sentinel. His shadow stretched across the room, swallowing the laughter as it reached II and IV, Lynsey’s phone still clutched between them.

“You’ve had your fun,” he rumbled, his voice steeped in the kind of authority honed through years of barking orders in the SAS. “Now knock it off, before I confiscate that phone.”

“Go on, Riley,” IV shot back with a grin, entirely unafraid. “Confiscate me next.”

Simon didn’t dignify that with a response.

He turned away from them, a quiet dismissal, and walked toward the door. His hand reached for the handle, his gloved fingers brushing against the cool metal. But just as he was about to leave, a voice cut through the air again, the familiar, teasing tone of III echoing in the now-muted chaos of the room.

“Don’t forget to give us a little twirl on your way out, Security Daddy.”

Bloody hell.

If this gig didn’t kill him, these muppets just might.

betweenstorms (next) (masterlist)

[probablyasocialecologist]

Israel’s legal manipulations draw on a series of ambiguities and exceptions that constitute international law, revealing that the laws of war favour states over non-state actors and the strong over the weak and consequently might not be the best tool to shield civilians in Gaza. Let us take some concrete examples. The standing orders given to the soldiers entering the Gaza Strip in 2014 were clear: Palestinians who did not heed Israel’s warnings to evacuate their homes and flee south became legitimate military targets. One soldier explained to the Israeli organisation Breaking the Silence that: “There weren’t really any rules of engagement … They told us: ‘There aren’t supposed to be any civilians there. If you spot someone, shoot’. Whether the person posed a threat or not wasn’t even a question; and that makes sense to me. If you shoot someone in Gaza it’s cool, no big deal. First of all because it’s Gaza, and second because that’s warfare. That, too, was made clear to us – they told us, ‘Don’t be afraid to shoot’, and they made it clear that there are no uninvolved civilians.” One might think that a military order permitting indiscriminate firing at civilians would be deemed illegal under international law, particularly given the principle of distinction (the bedrock of the laws of war calling on warring parties to distinguish at all times between civilians and combatants, and prohibiting the intentional attacking of civilians) – and given the fact that over half of the 2.3 million Palestinians currently living in the Gaza Strip are children. The irony is that Israel actually uses the laws of war to portray itself as the moral actor. As it has done earlier this week, in 2014, the Israeli army instructed hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to leave their homes and travel to the south knowing full well that among those living in the area are thousands of elderly and sick people and that the time it gave them to vacate the area was not sufficient. But Israel also knows that warning the Palestinian civilians and instructing them to leave will allow it to deny the very existence of civilians within northern Gaza. That is precisely the meaning of the phrase “there are no uninvolved civilians”, since it brands all those who have remained in the area – even if civilians are still the majority and are unable to leave, as the United Nations has averred about the current situation – as “participants in hostilities” or as “voluntary human shields”. Such terms render these civilians “killable”, according to some interpretations of the laws of war. And since the claim to morality is based on compliance with the laws of war, the lethal violence that Israeli soldiers use against civilians who remain in their homes is then constructed as morally justifiable and even ethical.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Akbar Shahid Ahmed at HuffPost:

The United Nations’ top court on Friday said Israel is illegally occupying the Palestinian regions it has controlled since 1967 and must end its presence in them — a landmark statement that boosts momentum for a change in Israeli policy.

The court found that Israel is committing major violations of international law, including “de facto annexation” of occupied land and breaking the global prohibition against racial discrimination and apartheid. It concluded that Israel should take steps like evacuating settlers and making reparations to affected Palestinians. It also emphasized Palestinians’ right to self-determination, and said other countries are obliged to cease support for Israel’s occupation and to help end the policy “as rapidly as possible.” The advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice covers Israeli practices in the occupied West Bank, in East Jerusalem (which Israel claims as its own territory) and in the Gaza Strip. The opinion from the panel of 15 judges from around the world, selected by the U.N. General Assembly, is non-binding and has no immediate consequences. The ICJ previously issued an opinion in 2004 saying Israel’s construction of a “separation wall” in the West Bank was illegal, yet the wall is still standing 20 years later.

[...] Meanwhile, the ICJ has found that various ongoing Israeli practices, from demolishing Palestinian homes to imposing “a regime of comprehensive restriction” on Palestinian movement, hinder the chances of Palestinian statehood ― which could bolster the argument that the longer the current situation persists, the less likely peace becomes.

[...] On Thursday, Israel’s parliament voted against the eventual establishment of a Palestinian state, backing a resolution that called the prospect “an existential danger to the State of Israel.” Many members of Israel’s security establishment and supporters of the country abroad argue the opposite: that reaching an agreement is the only way to lower tensions and respect Israel’s stated identity as a Jewish and democratic state.

[...] The court’s consideration of the Israeli occupation is separate from the case it is considering between South Africa and Israel, in which the former argues the latter may be committing genocide against Palestinians through its ongoing offensive in the Gaza Strip. The court has said there is a “plausible” risk of genocide, and issued three orders requiring Israel to change its conduct to do more to shield civilians. Those orders, known as provisional measures, are meant to be binding, but Israel has largely maintained the policies the court criticized, such as limits on the provision of aid to Gaza. The Friday opinion is also distinct from the action that another body, the International Criminal Court, is considering in relation to Israel-Palestine. The ICC’s top prosecutor is seeking arrest warrants against Israel’s prime minister and defense minister and three leaders of the Palestinian militant faction Hamas for alleged war crimes during the Oct. 7 attack and Israel’s military response in Gaza since.

The International Court of Justice issued a nonbinding ruling that Israel Apartheid State is breaching international law by illegally occupying Palestinian territory in East Jerusalem, West Bank, and Gaza.

This come on the heels of the Knesset in Israel voting to reject recognition for a Palestinian state.

See Also:

Sky News: ICJ rules Israel settlement policy in occupied Palestinian territories in breach of international law

[leportraitducadavre]

My interpretation of Itachi's character is fairly contrasting with yours. I pose my arguments against your analysis. I hope I would get a lead unto having an unbiased opinion.

Itachi's position in here between was a rock and a hard place. Having witnessed horrors of wars he chose to the stop war. It wasn't the best decision but even still he accomplished many things.

A new Forth Great Ninja war was prevented. Uchihas plan wasn't to reform the government it was to take control of them. Their desires were clearly reflected in their demands. While half of them was about freedom, the rest was only to control village. This, along with Obito's plan for revenge and war, will definitely start a war.

Madara, with the pact, was foiled for more than seven years long enough for the strong Shinobis like Naruto and Sasuke to grow up and defeat him.

Sasuke's life was saved. Itachi would go at all lengths to protect his brother. Afterall, its only obvious he would be over-protective of Sasuke since both loved each other a lot(as siblings).

The Uchiha's reputation were saved. Imagine what would have happened to the Uchihas after the war. The people were already suspicious of the Uchihas and now we will have never ending persecution and would be branded as traitors, doesn't matter if the coup won or lost. The coup wasn't about reforming anyway.

People in the village got to be safe too.

And despite all these he still regretted a lot enough that he wanted the person he adored the most to kill him. Also, no one here is trying to justify his action. A justification and a reason has a clear distinction. Just because there was a reason it doesn't make the acts were justified. He himself acknowledged that. The writer didn't try to justify nor did Itachi himself. People like, Hashirama and Naruto, appreciated the role he played and praised him as a Shinobi.(being seen as a villan while protecting the people isn't easy, btw). They weren't justifying or glorifying his actions in any instance.

He wasn't an absolute nationalist. He he was an idealist. His motivations most cases(especially while making big decisions)were to 'not beget war' and 'maintain peace'. Doesn't matter if Uchihas managed to control the village it still starts war, death, destruction and countless losses which is exactly what Itachi hated from when he was 4. He also wanted to reform the village by becoming a Hokage. He wanted to wiped out the entire ninja system since ninjas were the ones who were used as a weapon for the Diamoyo start constant wars. The Leaf was sort of obnoxious in the time of Tobirama and Hiruzen's regime. But even still, the Hokages were good and passionate and also the people were innocent.

A new Forth Great Ninja war was prevented. Uchihas plan wasn't to reform the government it was to take control of them. Their desires were clearly reflected in their demands. While half of them was about freedom, the rest was only to control village. This, along with Obito's plan for revenge and war, will definitely start a war.

How do you even know it was prevented? Shisui stating that hidden villages will take advantage of Konoha’s civil war to invade was just a fear that was actually constantly proven wrong throughout the series; when Suna invaded and Konoha was destroyed (forcing it to send their most powerful shinobi out of the village to collect money) no other village took advantage of the situation, not even Kumo or Iwa, two of the big five that were not struggling politically or militarily as Suna, Kiri and Konoha were. Kumogakure even tried to kidnap Hinata while in the middle of signing a peace treaty, yet they did nothing against the Hyüga clan nor the village during one of their most vulnerable state.

Furthermore, you mean to tell me that a civil war (I am using that notion generously because Konoha is a military state with a non-civilian population, specifically trained for combat) destabilizes the military and economic power of a city, yet the complete disappearance overnight of one of the village's founding and most powerful clans does nothing to its structure? Other villages wouldn’t see the absence of Sharingan-wielders as an enticing opportunity to strike? Do you mean to tell me that a village was left without police to control it overnight (and their job is considered super important by detractors), yet the city did not succumb to chaos?

Their desires were clearly reflected in their demands.

What were their demands? Enlighten me.

While half of them was about freedom, the rest was only to control village.

Where do you get this information from? There’s nothing of the sort stated in the manga.

This, along with Obito's plan for revenge and war, will definitely start a war.

Obito’s plan needed the annihilation of the Sharingan-wielders as he didn’t want anyone capable of obtaining the Mangekyou to jeopardize his plan to control the ten-tails, Itachi killing the Uchiha literally allowed Obito to start the war!! 

Madara, with the pact, was foiled for more than seven years long enough for the strong Shinobis like Naruto and Sasuke to grow up and defeat him.

… what? This doesn’t make any sense and has nothing to do with Itachi… you mean to tell me that Itachi killing his clan made Sasuke as powerful as he is? Because Sasuke has always been powerful and has always been Indra’s transmigrant, and as I’ve said, Obito wouldn’t have been able to initiate the war (or at least would’ve been incredibly difficult for him) with the Uchiha clan still alive!

Sasuke's life was saved. Itachi would go at all lengths to protect his brother. Afterall, its only obvious he would be over-protective of Sasuke since both loved each other a lot(as siblings).

An eight-year-old was tortured mentally by his brother through Tsukuyomi by watching his clan and parents get killed over and over again, was left to live alone in a compound destroyed by his brother’s actions, having to clean his parents’ own blood and fend for himself –but at least he’s alive… the circumstances and solitude in which he grew is abysmal, traumatic, negligent and inhumane, but we don’t care as much about children’s safety as we do children being just alive.

There were other children in that compound, children that knew nothing of and participated not in the coup to which Itachi didn’t extend the same kindness he did his brother.

The Uchiha's reputation were saved. Imagine what would have happened to the Uchihas after the war. The people were already suspicious of the Uchihas and now we will have never ending persecution and would be branded as traitors, doesn't matter if the coup won or lost. The coup wasn't about reforming anyway.

What “reputation”? The Uchiha were always constructed under a negative light within Tobirama’s system, you lot keep saying they were saved from being seen as detractors when there’s not a single panel that states they were planning to change the system as a whole (rather take down the current government, which is not the same).

Furthermore, to think that they cared about the rest of the population's mindset regarding them is so incredibly simplistic I have to laugh at it –they’re the strongest clan in the village, without Uchiha, there’d have been no village in the first place, and they were already aware of the unfavorable perspective in which they were regarded by others, nothing in itself would’ve changed.

The Uchiha being seen as loyal to the village helped no one but the current system as it is, as they’re seen as a government without opposition, it wasn’t about maintaining the Uchiha’s honor, but keeping the fragile credit of the structure and those in power -if Uchiha died in their own terms, then other clans will know about the clan’s discomfort with the current mindset, and those that feel uncomfortable with it might find a group that validates such sentiments:

Kakashi admits to being uncomfortable with the way he's viewed by the system, he even uses plural when referring to ninja ("we ninja") -meaning there's a communal uneasiness with the whole situation.

The fact that the government silenced detractors (Uchiha) by killing them will only deepen further the general shinobi population's discomfort, which is why is imperative to silence the truth.

[On another note, why do you keep using "honor" as an excuse to execute an entire compound of people? The entire clan was decimated and the whole "honor" of the family rested as another responsibility Sasuke had to endure all by himself thanks to "Itachi's love" -they were left with no honor as Sasuke was forced to restore it! Furthermore, they're all dead! What is "honor" gonna do for them? For the massacred innocents at least? They did nothing wrong and were killed regardless, their honorable nature wasn't even being questioned!]

People in the village got to be safe too.

Safe of what? When was it stated they were going to fight against those who weren’t in power? The problem is they rebelling against those they deem their oppressors but not the government refusing to renounce their power in order to keep the “population they hold so dear” safe? They are both willing to kill innocents (so I guess some people in the village weren’t safe, but in your book, they don’t matter as much), and use the rest of the military population to strike against Uchiha (which is also, never actually stated!). The idea of a “within war” was never confirmed as the Uchiha had no chance to strike, no one is to say they weren’t trying to take power through force yet quietly, no one is to know what was their actual plan as that was never brought to light!

The Uchiha are wrong for wanting to take the power but the government isn't wrong for wanting to keep it, the Uchiha are wrong for their methods to seek authority but not the government for defending the status quo. Uchiha having power would mean annihilation, somehow, despite them being against just their oppressors, not Konoha as a whole; while the government seeks to protect the village despite massacring an entire and most important portion of their militia and one of the founders' clans.

And despite all these he still regretted a lot enough that he wanted the person he adored the most to kill him. 

He regretted nothing, he wanted Sasuke to kill him in order to both give him an objective and to distract him from finding out Konoha’s involvement in the Uchiha Massacre, shouldering the entire responsibility of their demisse.

Also, no one here is trying to justify his action. 

But you are, you wrote point after point why he had to kill his clan.

A justification and a reason has a clear distinction.

What distinction? You need to expand on the notions you think are relevant to you own argument. 

Just because there was a reason it doesn't make the acts were justified. He himself acknowledged that. The writer didn't try to justify nor did Itachi himself. People like, Hashirama and Naruto, appreciated the role he played and praised him as a Shinobi.(being seen as a villan while protecting the people isn't easy, btw). They weren't justifying or glorifying his actions in any instance.

What are you even writing? I’m being honest with that question, claiming to have a reason to kill his clan is used as a justification for his actions! I can’t believe I have to explain that to you. He never said he had no justification (their coup was treated as such over and over, everyone took advantage of them wanting to coup in order to both order the massacre and carry it out!!).

How on earth can you write “People like Hashirama and Naruto appreciated the role he played and praised him as a shinobi but they never justified him”, so are they praising him or not? Them positively reinforcing Itachi and praising him for “his sacrifice” (you see, not only he is perceived as a villain, he is a villain, he killed an entire kin -again, innocents included, in order to maintain specific people in power) is justifying his actions under the notion of the “greater good for the village”. 

He wasn't an absolute nationalist.

He did everything for Konoha! He even claimed himself to be “Itachi of the Leaf!” What are you even talking about?

He he was an idealist. His motivations most cases(especially while making big decisions)were to 'not beget war' and 'maintain peace'. 

Yet his actions concluded in Obito being able to control the Ten Tails with almost no real opposition as the only other Sharingan-wielder was Sasuke.

Doesn't matter if Uchihas managed to control the village it still starts war, death, destruction and countless losses which is exactly what Itachi hated from when he was 4. 

How do you know? Do you have an entirely new manga written by Kishimoto about what would’ve happened had the Uchiha taken over the village? Itachi hated Uchiha since he was four because they brought “war, death and destruction” but not Konoha that actually provoked such wars, deaths, and destruction, what an intelligent boy! 

You have to be a troll because, man, “unbiased opinion” my ass. Also, did you just come to my blog with arguments coming from Itachi Shinden? The story not written by Kishimoto?

He also wanted to reform the village by becoming a Hokage. He wanted to wiped out the entire ninja system since ninjas were the ones who were used as a weapon for the Diamoyo start constant wars. 

Funny, under Hiruzen’s regime he would’ve never become Hokage, furthermore, when did he even hinted to want to become Hokage?? Never in the entire manga. Also, the Daimyo did little to nothing when it came to wars, those were all the Kage’s responsibilities! Dear Lord, did you at least read Team 10’s Arc? Asuma’s background literally explains how the Shugonin Jūnishi fought each other because six of them wanted the entire military power of the Land of Fire to be managed by the Daimyo alone while the rest, Asuma included, defended the Hokage’s existence. 

The Leaf was sort of obnoxious in the time of Tobirama and Hiruzen's regime. But even still, the Hokages were good and passionate and also the people were innocent.

Which people were innocent? The children and non-Sharingan wielders that knew nothing of the coup and were massacred regardless? How can you write “the Hokages were good” while they literally ordered the mass killing of people they swore to protect? How can you use “obnoxious” and “good” to describe the same two people?!

Gosh, the fact that you lot (Itachi stans) don’t comprehend that his involvement in the massacre of his own people alongside the protagonist’s endorsement of state-sanctioned genocide, makes the annihilation of an entire portion of a village a plausible option to handle internal disagreements is disastrous.

Committing genocide against the village’s own people sets a dangerous precedent where future governments can see and use such slaughter as a conceivable, even necessary, tool at their disposal whenever they feel threatened, making any clan vulnerable to the decisions of its government and guaranteeing the silence of possible detractors or even the censorship of constructive criticism of the political, military, economic and cultural system.

Jesus.

[sassydefendorflower]

Fashion Worldbuilding in FMA:b

From a historical fashion standpoint, the fashion in FMA:b (and the manga) is all over the place, but since the 1914/1915 setting of Amestris is not actually linked to the real historical time period there is no need to apply rigid fashion rules to the worldbuilding. And yet, I think it is very interesting to explain the fashion of Amestris through a Watsonian lens.

And what better place to start with than the very a-historical skin-tight, skin-showing clothing of our teenage characters?

Winry is always dressed practically and job oriented (coveralls, gloves, something to tie her hair back with) and yet she’s also dressed like a typical modern teenager. Crop tops and short skirts are the norm for when Winry is doing everyday stuff outside of her workshop or extreme territories. She is by far not the only character that dresses like this - we see both Matel and Paninya in similarly tight and form-fitting outfits.

And the world around them doesn’t react to this excess of skin with disgust or outrage - their way of clothing seems to be the general norm, or at least pretty widespread and accepted. But if we look closer, it seems that this is only a societal norm for young people.

Most of the older women we meet, are dressed rather conservatively, with dresses and long skirts being the norm. Hair is most often drawn in a bun on older female characters, and the general dress shape seems to be late 19th century inspired.

In this crowd scene for example, we can see a handful of young women wearing pants with their hair open, while the majority of the women depicted seem to be wearing skirts, dresses, and aprons as befitting a working women, while others seems to have scarves wrapped around their shoulders as if out and about on a stroll through town.

Which would make sense. This would divide the expected “proper” way of dressing along the axis of age (and/or marital status), with the cut-off being somewhere in the mid- to late twenties. Characters like Riza Hawkeye, Matel, and Sheska play into this, as they are all more conservatively dressed as Winry, but do not yet follow stricter fashion rules as they seem to be common in older demographics.

In this scene Riza is wearing a skirt that covers her knees and a jacket that covers her neck and the entirety of her arms. We later see her dressed in different civilian clothes as well, with a white blouse, a pink cardigan, and comfortable loose pants. As such she is in a transitional phase of fashion, between the more loose and short styles of the youth and the more traditional cuts of the older generation.

Shezka is much the same, her blouse and typical turtleneck much more “grown up” than the clothes Winry and her age-mates wear, and yet the rest of her clothes have not yet reached the same level of “age”. Both of these characters are also unmarried, which could be another factor in the way they dress - historically speaking, expectations on dress were different between single women and those that were married, so there is a distinct possibility of the same being the case in the world of FMA.

Which brings us to another very interesting axis of analysis: how do jobs and fashion interact in Fullmetal Alchemist?

The way I see it Amestris is a country on the verge of changing. We see a noteworthy amount of female soldiers, but only one female General - so much so, that Sloth is ordered to kill “the” female General, because Olivier Mira Armstrong is the only woman in the upper brass. The other female soldiers we meet all have ranks up to First Lieutenant, but nothing above. There are no female State Alchemists. Most of the other professionals we meet are men.

It makes sense for Olivier to be the first female general based on her family history and the fact that she was probably an outstanding soldier - but it also highlights that the military as a structure has probably only allowed female soldiers for up to 30 to 40 years by the time we meet the Elrics and their world. And I see much of Amestris through that lens - most gender-based laws have probably been repelled by now, but the society at large still remembers a much more divided structure. This is reflected in the fashion, of course.

In a country that has only recently changed its views on which professional fields should be open to all genders, the divide between the fashion rules for those that remember more rigid structures and those that grew up without certain assumptions is growing. Societal standards are slow to change, but they do reflect the opinions of the general public - or at least the rules and traditions people tend to cling to. 

Let’s take Gracia for example. While the hemline in general seems to be rising in all age demographics (except the elderly, while staying relatively conservative in older demographics and - hypothetically - married women) Gracia dresses less form-fitting than other women in her age range (Riza Hawkeye, Rebecca Catalina). She is generally dressed more “proper”, even later on when we see her wearing skirts that end above the knee. What I really find interesting though is the comparison to her younger self - roughly eight years younger, as this is a picture from the end of the Ishval War. Even though she is probably about twenty to twenty-three in this picture, she is dressed a lot more conservative than all the other female characters we have met in that age range so far. This can have multiple reasons. Maybe Gracia is from a more conservative, rich family that favors more traditional style of dress - or we can see the rabid change in society in just eight years.

Again, Amestris as a society in the middle of extreme social change.

We can even see it in the military uniforms. Female soldiers in active duty wear the same clothes as their male counterparts.

(including the butt-cape)

But what we see multiple times is other female officers employed at Central Command (or other military headquarters) wearing a different uniform - with a much shorter skirt (tho a longer skirt option seems to be available, as we also see female soldiers wearing skirts that cover the knees).

This could imply two things: a) the longer skirts were the normal uniform for female employees of the military not cleared for active duty, and only recently shorter skirts became a part of the uniform as a reaction to the changing fashion landscape or b) the shorter skirts existed for longer as some sort of sexist tool of the upper brass to demean their female employees.

For the sake of our current worldbuilding, let’s go with Option A).

Again, the general hemline seems to be rising - in a way, it wouldn’t even be historically unheard off. In the 1920s the female silhouette changed so much in young, city-dwelling circles that you might even see the occasional knee peak out from under a skirt - Amestris could be experiencing a similar change in fashionable dress.

There is one other thing I want to mention while I’m at it: the influences of other cultures on Amestrian culture and fashion.

Amestris is an imperial power, and while that means that it has a very strong national identity on the one hand, we can also see how it has adapted other cultural influences in its daily life. While the wearing of traditional Ishvalen clothing is probably demonized and a sure way to get othered, influenced from other nations Amestris is war-ing with can be found.

Xing-style clothing seems to be pretty common, and if anything it seems to be a sign of status to be able to afford clothes from Xing.

We see Mrs. Bradley were Xing-style clothing multiple times throughout the show, and it always seems to be something a lady of good standing can do without consequences. This implies a certain level of cultural trade and exchange between the two countries, especially once you consider that Xingese features seem to be common enough in Amestris that Ling always has to mention his status as a foreigner since his appearance alone would not give it away.

(And the fact that all Lan Fan and Fu had to do to go undercover was exchange their Xingese dress for classical Amestrian clothing and suddenly they could disappear in a crowd without a problem)

And this bit of decor in General Grumman’s office? This also implies some sort of cultural influences from Drachma.

There is also the fact that class probably does play a role in the way people dress, with people from Rush Valley, a certified weird town full of weird people, dressing more wild, with less need for social conventions in a place like that. And people from the countryside favoring practicality over fashion, and much of the women we see there wearing loose dresses and aprons, which makes sense. At the same time, what little we see of the Armstrong family, they seem to favor a more conservative style of dress, even at a younger age.

Which makes sense - fashion is influenced by a lot of different factors, class, age, gender, gender representation, work and cultural influences all making a difference.

And just as an aside - while this post mostly discusses women’s fashion in FMA:b, I think it applies to men’s fashion as well. At least to a certain degree. While most men are much more uniformly dressed in “old-timey” clothing, the current shift seems to be happening when it comes to wearing hats.

And I also think teenage boys are less tied to the fashion expectations of their time - Edward for example dresses very modernly and weird. BUT and - this is very interesting - his sense of fashion is constantly considered as outside of the norm. Part of his Growing-Up Arc is starting to wear the clothes society expects him to wear... which means that while women’s fashion is rapidly changing, men’s fashion is still rather strict in comparison, with breaking of the rules being perceived as socially “punishable” in comparison.

[quicksilverserpent]

I dont think civilian is a coherent category. Nor a very useful one either. Not unless all youre trying to do is manipulate useful idiots in a low effort way.

If youre a settler and the foundation for your whole lifestyle and prosperity is the violent dispossession of an indigenous people you cant truly claim to be an innocent bystander to that conflict.

If youre a member of the bourgeoisie and all the various arms of the state repressive forces committing all the violence in society from the exceptionally high pitched to the everyday cruelties are doing so on your behalf to enforce the social arrangements beneficial to you then you cant actually claim youre not a participant in that war. If youre a member of the ruling class its really even more important to winning any war effort to kill you and thereby end your will your desires and critically your ability to use your many resources to make those manifest than it is to kill whatever poor gullible sap youve hired to do your bidding. And so to go say "no you cant kill me ive got immunity youve got to restrict yourself to dealing with my replaceable underlings or else youre not respectable" its just so transparently bullshit.

Insurgents really are just ordinary people like anyone wlse whove been forced by their desperate wretched circumstances to take up arms by the crushing weight of the violence of imperialism and it is wrong to single them out from the rest of population as acceptable targets for the occupation just because theyve chosen to defend themselves and their communities from it. If someone punches you and you hit back your self defense doesnt vindicate or pardon their assult it doesnt give them a permission slip to beat the shit out of you only one of you has any "right" to be violent here.

Theres no equality in a war theres always an asymmetry yes everyone has their own narratives about who is right and who is wrong but thats the thing is some narratives are just bullshit theres no need to consider them or humor that shit whats important is seeking the actual truth.

All military occupations recognize who theyre fighting thats why draining the sea to leave the fish high and dry to suffocate is so frequently used to crush insurgencies which can move with ease among the population exactly because theyre a deeply enmeshed part of it that grew grassroots from it no matter how much the oppressors deny it for propaganda purposes.

Incumbent national regimes dont make these principled distinctions between these categories when its not convenient they go and slaughter whoever they feel they need to in order to accomplish their objectives civilian is just another rhetorical weapon to be applied to everyone else's conduct not their own a do as I say not as I do type thing.

When its wrong to kill someone its never about whether or not theyre a civilian thats really just a poor articulation of what the issue actually is its lazy and its just taking advantage of a prebuilt discourse which was built largely by and for war criminals ironically.

[edwordsmyth]

"It seems to me that we now have critical tools to track and condemn the destabilization of the juridico-political category of the civilian, a destabilization that has enabled the killing of innocent, blameless subjects, whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, or Yemen, to mention only a few recent examples. But perhaps we need to think more about the making of the figure of the civilian and the notion of civilian normalcy, the territorial and discursive conditions that go into cultivating civilian lives, and their unequal distribution. I propose that the settler-colonial conquest and territorialization of the land are not merely the context of the current events but forces that produce and stabilize specific categories, including that of the civilian. There is power involved in the making and unmaking of the civilian, not only in her being the target of violence. In Palestine, this power is an exercise of settler-colonial territorialization as it has been intertwined with the ongoing removal, killing, and enclosure of Palestinians.

Once the Zionist state was able to mark its borders, to fortify them with settlements and armed settlers, once it was able to territorialize itself by depopulating Palestinian villages and cities, destroying them, preventing the return of Palestinian refugees, and conscripting Jews from all the over world to populate the new settlements, once it did everything that was becoming illegitimate elsewhere in the decolonizing world, then it could begin to both materialize the figure of the civilian and the notion of civilized normalcy and weaponize them as conditions on the ground to be defended. In the civilian’s name and for its protection, atrocities could be carried out.

Key to this notion of civilian normalcy is its institutional-territorial condition of possibility: a strong state form with continuous territory and fortified borders. Israel has it. It acquired this state form by force from the Palestinians. This state form has institutions: a professional standing military, a police force, an interior ministry, a registry of citizens, and a defense ministry. These are but select institutions that produce and reproduce the distinction between civilian and combatant, even as national military service is mandatory for all Jewish, Israeli citizens, with only some exceptions. The condition of possibility for these institutions is the exclusion of the Palestinians — in terms of entry to the country, residency rights, family unification, access to land, and so on — their suppression, removal, policing, and enclosure. These institutions have fostered an Israeli civil society, civil posture, civil plurality—and civilian normalcy. The settler, the precise figure through which proceeded both the territorialization of the Zionist state of Israel and the dispossession and removal of Palestinians, has also morphed into a civilian.

The occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 1967 was central to the making of Israeli civilian normalcy. The “occupied territories” have always been the terrain for unleashing Israeli military power, thereby preventing the violence of the occupation from intruding into normalized Israeli civilian life. There, behind the green line, Israel has conducted the “conflict.” The more settler-military violence there is in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the more civilian normalcy there is in Israel, and the more the notion of civilian normalcy can be weaponized to justify more violence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. But the purifying and normalizing operations of the green line did not always go unchallenged. Palestinians have always understood that the condition of possibility for this civilian normalcy, inside the green line, was the destruction of Palestinian existence on the land and the ban on their return to the land. Hence, there have always been breaches of the enclosure and operations to undo the frontier: what Palestinians call “return.”

Meanwhile, a Palestinian claim for civilian status or civilian normalcy has met many challenges. Palestinian society was destroyed in 1948. The territories occupied in 1967 have been purposefully fragmented, disconnected, and separated by settlements. There is no state form, standing military, depth of territory, or civilian posture. Instead, there are many refugee camps, dispossessed families, and subjects-in-struggle. Everything that could cultivate civilian normalcy is already targeted by the Israeli Occupation, from homes and schools to NGOs, cultural centers, and universities. When compared to the other side of the green line, life in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the containers of Israel’s violence against Palestinians, cannot manifest civilian normalcy.

But there is more. The civilian ethos, as a matter of liberal sensibility, requires innocence, political passivity, lack of movement, and fixity. In the eyes of the liberal, civilized West, the civilian must be pacified, passive, and blameless and must reject rebellion. The Palestinians, as refugees, as politically engaged resistant subjects, as subjects who look in the direction of the land from which they were expelled and aspire to move in its direction, and as persons who wish not to settle in an enclosure, do not pass the test of this ethos. Their just refusal of confinement, steadfast rejection of enclosure, and non-despairing hope to return to the land from which they were expelled violates this liberal ethos. Their dreams and aspirations render them, in the eyes of those who value civilian normalcy despite its heavy toll on others, obliterable. Therefore, no emotion can be allowed to arise in the face of their extermination. Quite to the contrary. In the name of civilian normalcy, the a-civilian must be obliterated."

[argyrocratie]

(...)

"Set the scene for us: what is the ICJ, and why is the hearing taking place there?

The 1945 UN Charter — signed by all UN members, including Israel — affirms that the ICJ is the UN’s supreme legal organ. The Constitution establishes two powers for the Court: issuing advisory opinions, and ruling in cases between states. The Court’s verdicts are binding on the states that have signed the UN Constitution. A state can agree in an ad hoc manner that a particular dispute will be litigated by the ICJ, or invoke signed treaties containing a clause that establishes ICJ jurisdiction over disputes relating to those treaties. 

Israel has always had reservations about the jurisdiction clause, and has refrained from agreeing to ICJ jurisdiction in all the hundreds of treaties it has signed, except one: the Genocide Convention. Article 9 of the Convention stipulated that if disagreements arise between the members over the Convention’s authority or interpretation, the ICJ is the place to hear them. 

ICJ decrees are enforced by the UN Security Council. Chapters 6 and 7 of the UN Charter allow for a range of sanctions against countries that violate the Court’s ruling, such as economic sanctions, arms embargoes, and military intervention. The latter is rare but it has happened, for example in the first Gulf War.

Why did Israel sign up to ICJ jurisdiction in the Genocide Convention?

I’m not a legal historian; I can only guess. Israel was one of the initiators of the treaty, and historically one can understand why Israel would have pushed for such a treaty in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Secondly, I think that back then, the popular Israeli notion that we do not let gentiles judge us had not yet developed. We are talking about an era in which the international system had recently decided to establish a Jewish state. Maybe there was a little more trust in that system back then.

What constitutes a violation of the Convention?

(...)

It is defined as an act of extermination, or creating conditions that will annihilate a particular group with the intention of eradicating that group or even a distinct part of it.

The Convention, which was integrated into Israeli law in 1950, states that a soldier or civilian who kills a person, even one, while aware that he is part of a system aimed at annihilation, is guilty of the crime of genocide. In Israeli law, the punishment for this is the death penalty. This also applies to those who conspire to commit genocide, those who incite genocide, and those who attempt to participate in genocide.

What is South Africa basing its lawsuit on?

South Africa bases its accusation on two elements. One is Israel’s conduct. It cites a great deal of statistics about the indiscriminate, disproportionate attacks on civilian infrastructure, as well as about starvation, the huge number of casualties, and the humanitarian catastrophe in the Strip — horrifying statistics that the Israeli public is barely exposed to, because the mainstream media here does not bring them to us.

The second and more difficult element to prove is intent. South Africa is trying to prove the intent through nine dense pages of references to quotes by senior Israeli officials, from the president to the prime minister, government ministers, Knesset members, generals, and military personnel. I counted more than 60 quotes there — quotes about eradicating Gaza, flattening it, dropping an atomic bomb on it, and all the things we’ve gotten used to hearing in recent months.

South Africa’s case does not rely only on the fact that some Israel leaders have made genocidal statements. It further charges that Israel has done nothing in response to these statements: it hasn’t condemned the statements, it hasn’t dismissed from office the people who expressed them, it hasn’t opened disciplinary proceedings against them, and it certainly hasn’t opened criminal investigations. This, as far as South Africa is concerned, is a very strong argument.

Even if we haven’t heard the IDF Chief of Staff or the General of the Southern Command say these things, and we don’t have an operational order that says, “Go and destroy Gaza,” the very fact that these statements have been made by senior Israeli officials without sanction or condemnation sufficiently expresses Israel’s intention.

South Africa also pulled a little legal stunt to get here, correct?

Yes. The jurisdiction of the Court is determined when a dispute arises between the parties over the interpretation or application of the Convention. South Africa sent several letters to the Israeli government saying, “You are committing genocide.” Israel responded, “No we aren’t.” So South Africa said, “Okay, we have a dispute over the interpretation of the Convention.” That’s how it got the authority.

What can we learn from similar ICJ cases in the past, such as those regarding genocides in Bosnia and Myanmar?

First of all, we know from these cases that the burden of proof on South Africa is significantly lower for obtaining an interim order than for ultimately proving that Israel is committing genocide. We also know that this case will continue for years: the Bosnia case took 14 years; Gambia v. Myanmar is still ongoing. But the procedure for an interim order is fast.

Gambia filed its case against Myanmar on behalf of the Organization of Islamic States. It asked for an interim order stating that Myanmar must cease its military operations [against the Rohingya people]. The Court ruled that at this stage of the hearings, it did not need to determine whether the crime of genocide had been committed. What it needs to decide is whether, without an interim order, there is a real danger that the prohibitions set out in the Genocide Convention will be violated.

An interesting interim order was issued in that case, which I think has a good chance of being issued to Israel as well — not in the context of military activity, but of incitement. The Court’s order also required Myanmar to take enforcement actions and submit reports to the ICJ and Gambia on what it was doing to prevent genocide. As for the cessation of Myanmar’s military activity, this matter went to the Security Council, where both Russia and China threatened vetoes, but Western countries imposed sanctions and a military embargo anyway.

So even if South Africa fails to make the Court issue an interim order to stop Israel’s military activity, it could be that in the context of incitement — which enjoys full immunity in Israel — the Court will say that Israel needs to do something.

(...)

I know lawyers don’t like to wager on the results of court hearings, but if the ICJ does produce an interim order, what will that mean for Israel?

If the Court issues an order, the question is of course whether Israel will obey it or not. Knowing Israel, I expect that it will not obey the order, unless it can present the ending of hostilities as the result of its own independent decision, unrelated to the Court order. 

There are good reasons for Israel to do this, because disobeying an ICJ order brings things to the UN Security Council. It’s true that the United States has a veto there, and therefore a resolution to impose sanctions on Israel would most likely be blocked. But vetoing an ICJ order regarding concerns that genocide is taking place would come at an enormous political price for the U.S. government, both domestically and internationally. 

The Biden administration wants to portray itself as a government that sees human rights as one of its pillars. So it is likely that the United States would only veto such a resolution while imposing a significant cost on Israel in order to justify doing so, such as allowing the residents of northern Gaza to return to their homes, or entering into negotiations over two states — I don’t know.

But even if the United States doesn’t use its veto in that scenario, an interim order from the ICJ is likely to cause Israel serious problems. 

There is such a thing as an international legal “deep state.” Jurists and judges listen to what important courts say. And when the ICJ, also known as the World Court, makes its rulings, national courts in most of the Western world take note. Therefore, if the ICJ rules that there is a danger of genocide being committed, I can imagine a British citizen turning to a British court and demanding that the UK cease trading arms with Israel. Another implication is that such an ICJ ruling would likely force the ICC’s chief prosecutor [Karim Khan] to open an investigation of his own.

(...)

Within what time period is the Court’s decision expected?

There are no set rules, but in the Gambia v. Myanmar case, there was a decision within a month. It should be remembered that this [Gaza] case will continue after the hearing on the interim order. Israel will have to present evidence that will exonerate it from the claim that it is committing genocide, but in doing so could get into difficulties with the ICC. For example, it may explain that it bombed a certain place because it was pursuing a military objective, but it may thereby make admissions that create a basis for the claim that it used disproportionate force."

...

[gomzwrites]

Okay can I share something rq? I don’t care if only 4 people sees this but-

You know what I like about with fanfic especially the ones with Ghost?

Is how there’s a distinct difference between the type of readers he’s paired with, and all of them are good by the way. I just really wanted to share my own thoughts.

On one hand when Ghost gets paired with civilians readers, its really nice and sweet to see like, the most human interaction ever. Like yes, we all know Ghost is fucked up and shit due to the ptsd and his extremely sad background but in the end, he’s still just a guy, just a human like all of us that still craves desserts, a guy that makes silly puns(albeit dark), a guy that still tries to behave like a civilian despite having a hard time to do so. So reading the fluff type, you know the ones that calls Ghost Simon, its really cute for me because the readers are reminding him who he is, reaching out for the softest part of him in their own ways, to remind him that despite all the trauma, the pain and misery, that there is always some light in life that’s worth living for.

Then the ones that pairs Ghost with an equally traumatised or broken reader(like military/spies/agent or something else) are always my favourite, the way the writers clearly illustrate the interactions and paint a picture really sends me. Because in a way, its like when two broken people try to find “love” in their own method, its comforting to know that hey as broken as one can be, someone out there understands and sees your pain, sees the ugliness and acknowledge them. And actually tries(consciously or not)to initiate or form a bond.

I dont know how to say it but its like, whenever I see those fics I just like to watch how its like Ghost and reader picking up broken pieces of theirselves and planting it over each other, to make their own version, their own definition of love. Cause like, in the end that’s all that’s matters isn’t it? Like who cares if the relationship is rocky or kind of fucked up, in the end they’re just trying to have whatever the hell “love” is based on their own understanding.

ITS LIKE- *shakes uncontrollably* I DONT KNOW LIKE it feels so cool to see those kind of stories, like fuCK it hits me so deeply.

Someday I wish I can portray that level of intimacy and feelings in my own writings. Its really poetic and inspiring to see those kind of fic. Regardless, in the end its just a fictional character, so really you as the creator can write and pair him with any type of person you want, just have fun and all ya know? Also sorry if this whole thing is a mess, English is not my main language XDDD

[thatsonemorbidcorvid]

“It has been argued that when killing is viewed as not only permissible but heroic behaviour sanctioned by one’s government or cause, the distinction between taking a human life and other forms of impermissible violence gets lost, and rape becomes an unfortunate but inevitable by-product of the necessary game called war. Women, by this reasoning, are simply regrettable victims - incidental, unavoidable casualties - like civilian victims of bombing, lumped together with children, homes, personal belongings, a church, a dike, a water buffalo or next year’s crop. But rape in war is qualitatively different from a bomb that misses its military target, different from impersonal looting and burning, different from deliberate ambush, mass murder or torture during interrogation, although it contains elements of all the above. Rape is more than a symptom of war or evidence of its violent excess. Rape in war is a familiar act with a familiar excuse.”

- Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape, in the chapter on war rape



[loving-n0t-heyting]

We have to ask ourselves how meaningful political discussions of AI safety are, if they don’t cover military uses of the technology. Despite the lack of evidence that AI-enabled weapons can comply with international law on distinction and proportionality, they are sold around the world. Since some of the technologies are dual use, the lines between civilian and military uses are blurring.

The decision to not regulate military AI has a human price. Even if they are systematically imprecise, these systems are often given undue trust in military contexts as they are wrongly seen as impartial. Yes, AI can help make faster military decisions, but it can also be more error prone and may fundamentally not adhere to international humanitarian law. Human control over operations is critical in legally holding actors to account.

[beardedmrbean]

Hey Grunkle Nunya, I was wondering if you could explain to me how people are seeing Israel as the good guys in the Gaza situation, because I can only ever find Palestinian civilian body counts and blown up hospitals and stuff, and it honestly does look like a genocide from the standpoint of someone who generally doesn't research politics and conflict. I know the way I worded this looks like I'm being inflammatory but I mean it genuinely. What am I missing?

Asking anonymously because currently, asking questions about the Gaza conflict makes me either pro-genocide or anti-jew to the people with no critical thinking skills. I can't physically handle the toll of being accused of supporting genocide (Israeli or Palestinians) because of a mental disability I possess.

I apologize if this still sounds like bait, I am just poor with words and you are rich with knowledge.

It's war so everything gets muddy, especially with the body counts the gaza health ministry puts out.

I do not believe those at all, they put them out faster than should be possible even at the best of times, they also make no distinction between hamass militants and civilians so that's another issue with them.

We're going to make up a scenario here.

If you're looking for why Israel went in, imagine if New Jersey were another country, one that regularly sends people into the surrounding US states in order to kill Americans and generally sow chaos, and they've been doing it for 15-20 years with no sign of stopping at all ever or even dialing it back.

No real rhyme or reason to most of their attacks, occasionally they'll get pissed off about something or other and fire off a few thousand unguided rockets, just point the at the surrounding states light the fuse and hope they land somewhere where they kill people, no specific targets just anything they can hit and cause damage with and blaming the US when their own rockets fall back down on them.

Again doing this continually with no indication that it's ever going to stop or anything will convince them to tone it down.

Instead they do a coordinated invasion and just start killing everyone they see, which they went to Sesame Place right near the border with them and Pennsylvania instead of anywhere with any military value because the plan was to kill the most people they could while encountering the least possible resistance.

The US finally says, ok we're done with you and all of this and the organization behind most of the previous attacks and this current one which happens to also be the elected government of NJ is now in the crosshairs and we're going to keep shooting till they're gone one way or the other.

That would also be where Israel said we're done with you, hamass is going to cease to exist after we're done one way or the other.

So then it's full scale invasion time.

24 hour notice was given, saying this is where we are hitting, get out, 24 hours turned into several days, couple weeks I think, there were some air raids and strategic bombing and what not, a hamass rocket hit a hospital and Israel got blamed, the usual.

Obviously mistakes were made at times on both sides at the start and continue to be made, incredibly fluid thing wars are, things change on a dime.

And then we run into issues with the fact that hamass uses civilian buildings as weapons caches, staging grounds, command centers, pretty much anything you can thing a building would be useful for if you're fighting a war, which is a massive violation of international law as well as a war crime because they're hiding behind civilians.

From 2014

Great line toward the end

There is no indication that Israel deliberately targets civilians, as Hamas does. But

The argument is brought out that this kills civilians too, which yes it does, it shouldn't unless there's a misfire from one of the guided munitions in use by Israel, for one simple reason

Which they don't need to do, not if hamass has made the place into a valid military target by keeping rockets in the school.

They try at least.

In the first couple weeks before the ground invasion started there were reports coming out of gaza where the residents were saying that hamass had either taken the keys to their vehicles or disabled them making civilian evacuation that much more difficult, on foot and such kinda screws things up.

Allegedly threats were made to civilians as well.

As for the numbers, the side that's getting invaded is going to have more of those, as for the accuracy of those numbers, there's a reason why every news agency that cares even slightly about credibility includes 'according to the gaza health ministry' to the number.

As to the genocide question, there is no genocide, mass casualty attacks =/= as genocide and someone saying they'd like to wipe gaza off the map does not indicate a official government stance regardless of if the work for the government or not.

It's a war, innocent people die in war, it's a unfortunate reality of a even more unfortunate situation, especially if your on the side that's on the defensive folks in Israel have less to be worried about it's a lot harder for hamass to get to them, true at the best of times for hamass anyhow since it's not like they have a air force of any sort.

This whole thing did not need to happen, if it weren't for the fact that there's a group that has refused any reasonable offer and some that were incredibly slanted in their direction as well people at a music festival would have gone home when it was over and had great stories to tell.

Neither side is innocent, but at least for the one Israel complete and utter annihilation of everyone in Gaza isn't the goal, they just want hamass gone.

Not to say there aren't shitheads that want everyone in gaza gone in Israel and in the IDF, but that's not the stated goal of their mission.

If it was gaza city would look more like stalingrad after the nazis were done with it.

Choice of location is made purely because 99% of the area was razed, that is all so.

As for all the ceasefire stuff, the one they had going ended because hamass couldn't manage to keep their end of the deal up even though they were given several do overs, they just had to keep launching rockets and shooting civilians at bus stops.

No reason to think they would do anything different if another one were declared, they tend to be the ones that start off the shooting when it happens.

I don't know if I've made anything clearer for you or not, jumble of information and I've tried to leave politics and religion out of the whole thing setting it up as just 2 groups of people, and it's late so my brain is going a bit slow so I likely missed stuff.

When it's all over there's probably going to be enough war crimes to nitpick over on both sides.

I just hope there's also a lasting peace

[old-school-butch]

where are the women and children who went to Rafah supposed to go to escape the bombs of Israel? They have nowhere to go that isn't being bombed.

Normally, governments protect their civilians by making a clear distinction between civilian and military zones because, in the laws or war, civilians aren't directly targeted. This separation, like ensuring soldiers wear uniforms, keeps civilians safe. But if you're firing rockets from a hospital, it's not just a hospital anymore but also a military base. If your army and military leadership is hiding in the middle of a civilian safe zone, it's a military base and now a legitimate military target. I don't like this situation but 'the bombs of Israel' are not aimed at civilians. Hamas keeps hiding among civilians and amazingly, it's Israel that gets the criticism instead of Hamas. It's astonishing behavior to me, but apparently Hamas isn't held to Western standards, I suppose no one seems surprised that a terrorist group would behave this way. I didn't think they'd do this to their own people, but since it plays so well in their PR campaign then they really have no reason to change tactics and actually try to fight the war they started. Ask Hamas what their women and children should do, they've been planning this war for year, since the end of the last war they started. This isn't an accident, it's Hamas' strategy.