Trump gives update on possible Gaza ceasefire

I think all parties should follow international law, and all parties should be held to account equally.

I think there's a lot of stories flying around and has been long before this war. I think a lot of arguments made are made with a large dose of intellectual dishonesty. The truth will out once investigated.

I am not twisting your words- I have simply reflected back what your words implied to me.

So to clarify- you do think Israel should of course obey international law when attempting to get back the hostages and deal with the threat of Hamas. You don’t think any response would necessarily always be proportionate in this goal.

We agree then!

So what do you think about the concerns raised by international law experts in the links already provided? There are others too, for example concerns raised by the EU report.

Stop twisting what I said.

I said they should rescue their hostages and stop hamas from doing it again.

I never said anywhere that they should break international law.

You just seem to want an argument based on nothing I've actually said.

The facts of all Hamas' and Israels actions will need to be investigated and accounted for, but certainly not by me or you.

What should Israel do to seek peace with Palestinians?

Well, they could try stopping killing them in huge numbers every day? That’s often a good start in a peace process.

@ForgesOfEmpires
There is no right to break international law though is there?

I am sure you will be completely aware that the hostages released have been through times of negotiations and not conflict.

Israel’s own military leaders stated that they saw no further advantage of continuing the bombardment of Gaza some time ago. Trump is really raising the pressure for there to be a ceasefire now.

“For example some argue that Israel is not doing enough to avoid civilian suffering, and some argue that Hamas is doing things like using hospitals for military purposes.

All that is being debated and is another matter entirely.”

Then what you are debating? Isn’t that the crux of the matter about whether Israel broke international law?

“That is what the reports and links you sent me written by experts are talking about. They are not saying that what I said is against international law. Which was:
"I think getting your hostages back and ensuring the country that did it is completely disarmed and cannot do it again is a proportionate response".

This is - even in my opinion as a non-lawyer- reinforces my concerns you don’t understand international law. You still need to be proportionate!

I will admit, being AUDHD and not born here, it took me a really long time to understand British snark properly 😂- but I think I have got it now. I've been working at it but I am better at just being direct, so let's try that.

I stated earlier on: "I think getting your hostages back and ensuring the country that did it is completely disarmed and cannot do it again is a proportionate response".

To which you replied: Well its clear that you don’t either agree with or understand international law 🙃

Pretty much nobody is debating Israel's right to get their people back and take action to ensure Oct 7 is not repeated. It's the international consensus across Europe and from the USA and beyond..

The EU president: “I unequivocally condemn the attack carried out by Hamas terrorists against Israel… Israel has the right to defend itself against such heinous attacks.”

PM of The Netherlands: “Israel has the right to defend itself and must remove the threat of Hamas and do everything to free hostages”

UK Ambassador to the UN: "We support Israel's right to defend itself against Hamas, take back the hostages, deter further incursions, and strengthen its security for the long term.”

What there is back and forth over is whether or not Israel is going about those things in a legal way.

For example some argue that Israel is not doing enough to avoid civilian suffering, and some argue that Hamas is doing things like using hospitals for military purposes.

All that is being debated and is another matter entirely.

That is what the reports and links you sent me written by experts are talking about. They are not saying that what I said is against international law. Which was:

"I think getting your hostages back and ensuring the country that did it is completely disarmed and cannot do it again is a proportionate response".

Nothing whatever in my message refers to any specifics, the type of which you are arguing.

No, but I do value the opinion of specialists in the field who have seen the evidence versus ChatGPT 😁

As mentioned, married to a barrister and so one thing I do know is that lawyers do not give answers, they give advice and opinions. Which essentually means their interpretation of what a court would likely find, or even just their personal opinion based more around their own bias than any legal framework.

Law is law. In courts, judges listen to both arguments, evaluate the laws in question and make a judgment based on that. That judgement is an interpretation of the law and what I've quoted is the actual applicable international laws. Verbatim. It sounds to me like it supports what I said.

What you've shown me is the opinion of some lawyers and others, and I assure you there's plenty with the completely opposite view.

McDonald’s legal team argued in court that eating McDonald's food was actually be nutritious if consumed in the right quantities. They can actually argue anything they like. Plenty of very top legal minds are currently making an impassioned argument that women may or may not have penises.

So circling back to your initial criticism, "you obviously don't know international law", .....neither do you 😂 And even if you did, you'd still just be presenting your opinion. Mumsnet isn't a courtroom.

I am not sure I would rely on ChatGPT for legal advice - not very specific to the situation is it?

You could - if you genuinely wanted to know- read the report by independent international law lawyers. Pages 6- 8 covers it.

https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/240520-panel-report-eng.pdf

There have been a number of letters by lawyers in the issue too. Here’s a recent one:

https://lawyersletter.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Gaza-letter-26May25.pdf

Well I don't understand international law, you are right. My husband is a barrister and he also doesn't understand international law - it's complicated. But I do understand Google. And here's what the law says:

UN Charter, Article 51 – Right of Self-Defence

• A state has the inherent right to self-defence if an armed attack occurs.
• This includes military actions to prevent further attacks, dismantle hostile infrastructure, and secure the return of hostages.

Geneva Conventions

• These protect civilians and non-combatants during war.
• Proportionate response does not mean equal casualties. It means the military advantage must not be outweighed by excessive civilian harm.
• Hostage-taking is a grave breach of international humanitarian law (a war crime).

Proportionality in International Law:

• A proportionate response does not require responding “in kind” (e.g. matching the number of deaths).
• It permits eliminating the capacity of the attacker to carry out further assaults if that’s necessary to ensure security.
• Proportionality is judged in relation to the military objective, not the initial attack’s death toll.

If a state is attacked, its people are kidnapped, and threats continue from multiple armed groups, then military action to:

retrieve hostages,
destroy the attacking group's capabilities,
and prevent future attacks

can be legally proportionate, provided civilian harm is minimised and not excessive in relation to the direct military advantage.

So I feel pretty good about it. Feel free to provide any different parts of "international law" you think I am missing and I would be happy to run a check on it.

There are no separate tax rates based on religion or ethnicity in Israel’s official tax code. Everyone - Jewish, Arab, Druze, Christian, atheist - pays the same income tax, VAT, property taxes, etc.

However, Jewish immigrants under the Law of Return (Aliyah) do receive immigration benefits, like reduced income tax for a while. These benefits are based on immigration status. Similarly I am currently looking into emigrating to Greece on a Nomad visa and am being offered similar terms (les the Hebrew!) because Greece wants to attract immigrants like me who WFH and earn well.

Israeli Arabs can and do lease public/state-owned land and The Israeli High Court has ruled that state land must be leased to all citizens equally, regardless of religion or ethnicity.

Neither of these things is remotely apartheid and to imply the world must dictate to Israel who it does and doesn't want to attract to migrate there is plain nuts!

Well its clear that you don’t either agree with or understand international law 🙃

@ForgesOfEmpires
”It was far from ideal and I can completely understand why more equality was desired. Isn’t this what is happening in Israel too- there are differential laws applied, and hence claims of apartheid, including differential land purchase laws.
This is false. All people in Israel have the same rights. Identically. What you are talking about is the Palestinian territories, which is not Israel.”

This is wrong. There are differential tax rates applied if you are Jewish and moving to Israel.
There are also restrictions on who can lease land- by far, majority is owned by the state, after it passed laws retrospectively to take ownership of land after 1948 war, or the Jewish National Fund.

Israel was happy to proceed with a 2ss solution that made impossible demands from Palestinians. They were unwilling to make concessions for Palestinians but expected Palestinians to make concessions for them. Hardly equitable.
https://jacobin.com/2020/10/israel-peace-palestine-oslo-accords-plo

If another country invades your country, murders lots of people, very brutally, and takes your people hostage and refuses to give them back, and promises very publicly to do it again and again, showing support from multiple militias around the world who all start attacking you at the same time - what do you honestly think is a proportionate response?

I think getting your hostages back and ensuring the country that did it is completely disarmed and cannot do it again is a proportionate response.

No one’s going to argue with you that Hamas about broke international law. Of course they did.

I do expect a country, particularly a democratic ally of the West that gains from its association internationally, to be proportionate in its responses and abide by international law. To be seen not to risks international opprobrium.

All eyes remain on Israel at present as the 2ss, that you say you agree with, is fundamentally at risk as Israel now seeks to ethnically cleanse Gaza. Even the Telegraph- a right wing highly conservative UK paper - questioned Israel policy on this.

I agree. Under International law Israel is a sovereign country and it is absolutely illegal for Hamas or any armed group to invade Israel, launch rockets at civilian areas, or seek its annihilation. Although by my count several have been doing all these things for decades.

These actions constitute grave breaches of international legal norms, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, and potentially genocide, depending on the intent and scope of the violence.

The UN Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. While Hamas is a non-state actor, that does not exempt it from responsibility under international law.

The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols are clear: deliberately targeting civilians or civilian infrastructure is a war crime. Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups have repeatedly fired rockets into civilian areas of Israel without distinction. These are not military strikes with collateral damage-they are deliberate, often indiscriminate attacks designed to terrorize a civilian population.

In addition, the use of terror tactics -attacks meant to spread fear among civilians - constitutes a violation of the Geneva Convention. Such actions are also outlawed under numerous United Nations Security Council resolutions concerning terrorism and the protection of civilians in armed conflict. Same applies to taking hostages.

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines widespread or systematic attacks against civilians as crimes against humanity. Hamas’s repeated and large-scale targeting of civilians falls directly under this definition.

Launching attacks from civilian areas, including homes, schools, hospitals, and UN facilities, is also a serious breach of international law. This practice violates the principle of distinction, which requires parties to a conflict to distinguish at all times between civilians and combatants. It also breaches the principle of proportionality, which prohibits attacks that would cause excessive civilian harm in relation to the anticipated military advantage. Hamas’s use of human shields not only endangers civilians but also turns populated areas into legitimate military targets, thereby compounding the harm.

Furthermore, Hamas’s founding charter and ongoing public statements call for the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews worldwide. This is not merely political rhetoric -it fits the legal definition of incitement to genocide under the Genocide Convention, which criminalises both direct and public incitement to commit genocide and attempts to commit genocide.

To be clear, under international law, it is entirely unlawful for Hamas or any other group to invade Israel, attack civilians, use human shields, fire rockets from within civilian infrastructure, or advocate for the destruction of a state and its people.

These actions are not forms of legitimate resistance or liberation - they are serious international crimes. International law applies to all parties in a conflict, and the standards must be upheld universally, not selectively. So in summary, if Hamas and other groups stopped doing these things - Israel would have no need for blockades or wars or any of the other things people are unhappy with.

But rather than come out and say that, there's seemingly a global effort to simultaneously ignore all of the above and either require Israel to keep tolerating it indefinitely, or even remove what they have in place for self defence. Utterly crazy!

The claims wasn't that the land belonged to them millennia ago.

The claim was many things.

They (at the time) owned nearly as much land privately as Arabs did, and they had done great things with agriculture, creating jobs, schools, hospitals,they had as much if not more claim to the land. They had a deep religious and historical connection to the Land of Israel, especially Jerusalem and other ancient sites. They had maintained a continuous presence there for 3000 years. On top of that the Peel investigation concluded that Jewish and Arab nationalist aspirations were fundamentally incompatible. Arabs wanted independence and a halt to Jewish immigration. Jews wanted a secure national home and future majority in a place where they would not be subjugated. As such, the Commission said coexistence under a single state was unworkable, and partition was the only fair solution.

Do you think it would have been fairer if the world had created 23 Arab states and Jews had continued to be ethnically cleansed and subjugated? You may claim they would not have been but look at other similar communities across the middle east: Coptic Christians, Kurds, the Yazidis taken in their thousands as ISIS sex slaves, forcibly sterilised, genocide after genocide, burned alive for refusing to convert. Would that have made it right for you?

That aside, do you honestly believe that Jerusalem, and Judea, is Arab land historically? Most meaningful and culturally important to them? Do you honestly believe it would be some sort of global justice if Jerusalem was a place Jews could not live freely? Would it be all right is Muslims could not live freely in Mecca?

Why do you feel being a majority means others cannot have independence? Being a minority works when you live in a secular democracy like America, where minorities have equal rights that are forcible upheld. It does not work in places where minorities are subjugated or mistreated. Do you think Black people could have stayed in America if not for civil rights? Civil rights don't exist in these places, and they never have. Where I come from, if you run over someone of a lesser race with your car, nobody cares.

I agree the millet system did not allow complete equity but it was an effective method of managing a large empire. It also meant that Jews were not expelled or forcibly converted, as was happening in Europe.

Why not give everyone equal rights? Why not just NOT forcibly convert people? Why not just NOT exile people? Religious supremacy is a choice. Israel is living breathing proof that it was always a choice. In Israel, Arabs do not need to be dhimmi or have a millet system - they just get the same as everyone else. I appreciate your point here is that is was livable and Jews could have just settled for being second class citizens with no political rights or security but they are people who are just as worthy as Arabs or anyone else of having the same rights you enjoy.

It was far from ideal and I can completely understand why more equality was desired. Isn’t this what is happening in Israel too- there are differential laws applied, and hence claims of apartheid, including differential land purchase laws.
This is false. All people in Israel have the same rights. Identically. What you are talking about is the Palestinian territories, which is not Israel.

You could argue this is in response to Israel establishing themselves as a state and complex safety situation, but the impact has been to be make it increasingly difficult for Palestinians to establish a 2SS.
Nobody can read minds, but having spent 20 years following every move of this, I have never once had any inclination that anyone other than Palestine was blocking the 2SS. Every negotiation, every statement, every peace deal has always ended with them walking away because intimately they cannot accept Jewish self-determination. It is even in the Arab charter of human rights that all people deserve self determination, except Jews who it essentially implies are European colonisers, which is just not true. About half the Jews in Europe by 1950 had been in the middle east going back 2000 years or more.

@ForgesOfEmpires
The way I see it, history over the millennia has in fact no relevance here. International law over the century does. The EU - fervent allies of Israel - have even raised concerns about this, although it will be a different matter whether they decide to review association with Israel.

« As we cannot DNA test people for racial purity, I think a fair position is this: 2 million Arab Palestinians live in equality and safety in Israel. It is time the Palestinian leaderships offered the same to Jews. »
Completely agree and moreover would say that this should then mean relatives of Palestinian refugees have equal rights to move back to the region then? And not just Jews who have more distant links?

As for blockade of Gaza, yes I can see why they would want to control borders - but why at the same time allow millions of dollars get to Hamas. It served a purpose. One of the main concerns about Israel breaking international law was the restrictions on essential goods early on in the conflict and then again earlier this year. You can quibble about lack of starving children on your social media feed. Here’s an article for you to peruse
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/05/theyre-skin-and-bones-doctors-in-gaza-warn-babies-at-risk-of-death-from-lack-of-formula

To focus this on the subjugation of Jews is simplistic.
The Jews are the ones who wanted independence, so the focus is on them. Were any other group in the same position, I would feel the same way.

To me, it seems bizarre to state a land belongs to you from a claim millennia ago. You say you don’t care an iota that Muslims were the majority in 1917, but to a lot of people including Palestinians it did and does. We are now seeing the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Gaza and WB in the most barbaric way.

I agree the millet system did not allow complete equity but it was an effective method of managing a large empire. It also meant that Jews were not expelled or forcibly converted, as was happening in Europe.

““Peaceful coexistence” ignores the deep power imbalance. Jews were dhimmis, second-class citizens under Islamic rule, and were subject to discriminatory laws, including the jizya tax, clothing restrictions, and legal inferiority. They co-existed peacefully so long as Jews accepted that. And would you?”

It was far from ideal and I can completely understand why more equality was desired. Isn’t this what is happening in Israel too- there are differential laws applied, and hence claims of apartheid, including differential land purchase laws. You could argue this is in response to Israel establishing themselves as a state and complex safety situation, but the impact has been to be make it increasingly difficult for Palestinians to establish a 2SS.

You note Hamas and Fatah, but seem not to mention the changes to the latter after the Abraham accords with the PLO/ PA, which appear to be corrupt and extension of Israeli occupation.

You can take this with a big pinch of salt for now.

I have read (unverified reports) that Trump has promised Netanyahu with normalisation ties with Syria if he ends the war.

@Twiglets1 thanks for the updates.