Related: How is Israel's situation vs Hamas in Gaza/Palestine remarkable when it comes to evidence?
Re the ongoing Israel vs Hamas war, I've been reading about some principles of war / international humanitarian law like:
There are concerns that, arguendo on the pro-Palestine side, Israel has the right to defend itself in Gaza/Palestine vs Hamas and isn't violating the principle of distinction but might be violating the principles of proportionality or military necessity.
Eg In this video of one path network.
Eg any piers morgan video recently (probably you can search 'quandary' in the transcripts of the videos.
And indeed I believe this is a fair assumption ... like in TV series like 24 or Homeland or whatever, it's usually that the terrorists or bad guys violate the principle of distinction by directly targeting civilians or taking them hostage while the counter-terrorists or good guys, if they do anything bad, violate not the principle of distinction but the principle of proportionality or military necessity when they bomb certain places.
- But I read Israel (supposedly) seeks advice for its military strikes.
I mean surely, any country/state/(whatever Palestine is) must be prepared to defend itself in court just as it prepares to defend itself militarily and thus definitely they'd consult attorneys and stuff to prepare them eg against South Africa.
Maybe a dumb question, but here goes: So, I think that ignoring possible war crimes of dissenting/rogue/stupid/negligent low level soldiers and focusing solely Bibi Netanyahu, Mark Regev, higher ranking members of IDF, et al, if they are committing war crimes that violate principles of proportionality or military necessity and indeed again assuming they're not violating principle of distinction, then what does it mean other than the following?
- They're not listening to or consulting their lawyers. (Again, why wouldn't they expect criticism from South Africa or whomever?)
- They have bad lawyers. (So blame not the leaders but their lawyers?)
- They have 'great' lawyers as in 'A good lawyer knows the law; a great lawyer knows the judge.' because somehow they want to commit war crimes but can bribe the judge. (Seriously?)
