Oh, right. I was going with the "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity" specified in the ICC warrant. As opposed to the "some asswit in Saskatchewan" charges.
I think maybe we’re on the same page, but in different lanes here. It could be that simple.
Ron, they'd love to but can't because...
Part of the problem is that there is no generally agreed definition of "terrorism." I think a good-enough stab at it is "illegal violence by non-state actors against innocent civilians to coerce governments into political changes." The terrorism is "state-sponsored" if it is substantially originated or facilitated by a state.
Ben-Gvir armed the settlers, IDF is doing the raids too so it is very much state sponsored terrorism. An IDF bulldozer pushing houses over is the IDF commiting terrorism.
That's state action, i.e., warfare, declared or undeclared.
I'm talking illegally occupied West Bank. Settlers aren't immigrants to Palestine.
Yep, classic state-sponsored terrorism. We do the same, but we call it "supporting freedom."
It's been 6 "two weekseses to build a bomb" when is the next illegal strike on Iran?
Is it scheduled yet? I don’t believe they (yeah, who’s “they” in this instance?) generally announce these sorta things publicly in advance.
Curious there too.
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, with limited exceptions like self-defense.
I suppose you could make out a prima facie case to a particularly sympathetic judge.
So. . . do you propose Security Council action, or just pissing and moaning on the internet?
The International Commission of Jurists and some other legal scholars saw the Israeli strikes as a violation of international law.
The conflict is considered an escalation of decades-long animosity between Israel and Iran, including a proxy war, during which Iran challenged Israel's legitimacy and called for its destruction. It also follows more than a decade of international concern about Iran's nuclear program, which Israel considers an existential threat?
Who has veto power there neutering the Security Council? Whom are the (I believe) five permanent non-elected members there again?
It wasn't a legitimate strike. In the same breath one could say Israel is a US proxy.The International Commission of Jurists and some other legal scholars saw the Israeli strikes as a violation of international law.
Iran–Israel war - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
International Commission of Jurists - Wikipedia
The conflict is considered an escalation of decades-long animosity between Israel and Iran, including a proxy war, during which Iran challenged Israel's legitimacy and called for its destruction. It also follows more than a decade of international concern about Iran's nuclear program, which Israel considers an existential threat?
Is this “existential threat” the justification for self defence (?) twenty months into Israel’s fight against Iran’s proxies of Hamas and Houthis and Hezbollah and maybe some other non-state actors who’s names may start with the letter “H”? This on top of Iran’s challenging Israel's legitimacy and called for its destruction?
Who has veto power there neutering the Security Council? Whom are the (I believe) five permanent non-elected members there again?
What would’ve made it legitimate? What in your opinion makes it non-legitimate?
