Israeli minister calling for a state that includes many Middle Eastern countries

[Nads0622]

I've just seen a video of the Israeli finance minister Bezalel Smotrich stating he wants a Jewish state, Greater Israel which includes Jordan, Saudi Arabia , Iraq , Syria and Lebanon. He’s basically calling for mass genocide !!!
why is no one talking about this .

@LoremIpsumCici and @MoveToParis ,

The PP was deploring all civilian deaths, not expressing concerns that the laws of combat were not being followed.

Hezbollah were clearly using human shields in meeting under an occupied civilian building in Beirut, against the laws of combat. Israel, in using precision munitions, to attack buildings in Beirut housing Hezbollah guerillas, on the other hand, are abiding by the laws of combat.

Don’t you ever wonder why Hamas and Hezbollah commanders are always killed hiding amongst civilians?

First it isn’t always. Secondly, being a solider or terrorist is an occupation, one is legal the other criminal, but both have families and both are not always on duty, but home with them. This is why assassination of commanders by blowing up entire buildings is not legal but Israel has literally normalised it by claiming it’s a “military target hiding with civilians”. When the Americans found Osama Bin Ladens compound which had his family living there too. They did not drop a bunker busting bomb on it like Isrsel has been doing in this conflict. They sent in a team of Navy Seals to go in and kill ONLY Osama and his guards. I think only two civilians were accidentally killed out of over 30 women & children living there (Osama’s immediate family, extended family and guards’ families). Irsael’s assassination of Hamas leader Haniyeh with a small bomb that only blew up the flat he was in and killed only him and two guards was legal. If they’d destroyed the entire block of flats, killing everyone in them that’s not legal, no amount of human shield arguments makes it legal.

Third, many IDF commanders were killed while at home on their kibbutzim with their families. The kibbutzim were intentionally targeted by Hamas not just to get hostages, but to attack and kill a list of IDF commanders- especially security chiefs. This is rightly condemned as an atrocity. The IDF commanders were not using their family as human shields. Trying on the same argument would not work either.

Fourth, rockets launched by Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran have been aimed at military bases and also civilian homes where IDF soliders live. This ones shot at civilian homes is rightly called a war crime. It is also a war crime when Israel does it. The rules are the same and as Israel signed an international convention promising to follow these rules, it is devastatingly disappointing that they are not keeping their word.

A soldier/combatant in their home is never a target that justifies killing the civilians around them to kill them. The laws of armed conflict specify that you keep your attacks to a combat zone and if you have to go after key leaders in hiding, you still have to do the best you can to avoid civilian deaths.

There is mounting evidence that Israel is not following the Laws of armed conflict. The record breaking civilian death rate is part of this evidence.
With respect, using human shields doesn’t then mean the law allows a military to kill the human shields to get to a target.

@LoremIpsumCici ,

It is a balanced judgment. A human shield does not, in law, immunise a military target (including personnel) from attack.

On the other hand, the attacking party has to consider the principle of proportionality. So, the killing of 22 civilians, using a precision munition in attempting to kill a high value Hezbollah target, can be argued to follow this principle, which is what this thread was about.

Some of the larger ‘dumb’ munitions dropped on Gaza, OTOH, could be seen as failing to adhere to this principle and, thus, could constitute a war crime.

I am not comfortable with what Israel did/is doing in Gaza. So far, however, in Lebanon, they have been taking out buildings using precise weapons, not areas using imprecise ones.

Take the attacks on hospitals and clinics, the law even says that if you have wounded combatants getting medical treatment in there- doesn’t matter if solider or terrorist or commander of either- that healthcare facility is still off limits. You cannot attack it with bomb, tank, small arms, snipers, bulldozers, nada.

You also cannot storm in on a raid with a squad of soldiers to shoot these wounded combatants in their hospital beds or kidnap them, take them outside and summarily execute them in the street.

A wounded combatant is literally treated under the law as a civilian would be because they are no longer an active lethal threat.

The same goes for an ambulance with a wounded soldier or terrorist in it.
OFF LIMITS.

You think 22 civilian deaths is proportionate because they "wanted" to take out a Hezbollah target?

Correct, the presence of civilians doesn’t confer complete immunity.

However, there is more than proportionality to consider. Even if proportionality is met (and I disagree that 1 high value leader for 22 civilians even comes close to meeting it), you still are required by law to prove that you could not avoid killing the civilians, and that you had to attack your target when you did because it posed an immediate and direct threat to your combatants or other civilians.

This is a very hard standard to meet and is usually reserved for active combat situations(crossfire), not mere meetings.

The assassination of Nasrallah involved not a precision bomb, but 85 bunker buster bombs each with a kill radius of 33 metres, dropped with no warning within a few seconds of each other on multiple multi-storey residential buildings.
I hope you can see there is rightly issues with the legality of this.

@itwasnevermine ,

Yes, depending on the importance of the target to Hezbollah’s war effort.

That is the judgment the IDF has to make.

You cannot, as a combatant, hide in a civilian area and shout ‘Homey, nah nah na nah nah’. It isn’t a game if tag.

Apologies @itwasnevermine , the above was for @LoremIpsumCici

The ICC is the final judge of individuals for compliance with the law, not the IDF.
The ICJ is the final judge of nations for compliance with the law, not the IDF.

The ICC and ICJ have jurisdiction over all the conflict zones rn. They will determine if the law has been followed or not, looking like not for at least Hamas and IDF going by the cases filed and arrest warrants applied for.

@LoremIpsumCici ,

The IDF has to make its own judgment before attacking a building in Beirut. It can’t ask the ICC and ICJ in advance.

As far as I know, there is no case going through either of the above bodies concerning Israel’s conduct in Lebanon.

The ICJ has already ruled on Israel's actions in Palestine though, and there are further cases that will be brought.

So far, however, in Lebanon, they have been taking out buildings using precise weapons, not areas using imprecise ones.

@Newbutoldfather this really is not the case. The bombing in the last day or so in central Beirut has been anything but that.

"The US envoy also says Israeli strikes on the central Beirut districts of Basta and Nweiri late Thursday that killed 22 people were “totally unacceptable.”

I think her point was that the icj will eventually rule on whether it is a war crime or not, not that Israel should consult them first. We all have different moral compasses and can argue back and forth what is proportionate or not based on that but the law is the law and if war crimes are being committed they will be ruled as such (or not if they're not).

Israeli commentators are talking about the holocaust as justification for attacking Lebanon, Iran. They say that they don't want the holocaust to happen again, and so they have to attack Lebanon, Iran, etc. That is why other people also mention it. This is not antisemetic.

One of Hitler's ideologies was the Jewish question but another was lebensraum which was inspired, in fact, by early American settlers, and is to do with expanding into other nation's lands and getting rid of indigineous people - someone said that Hitler wasn't stopped (in relation to lebensraum) - is that the post you thought was antisemitic? It wasn't antisemitic, it was saying that in history lebensraum policies are not always stopped.

MNHQ - it is important to get history right here and also to be able to speak about difficult subjects in response to challenges which are based on wrong information, please don't delete posts which are trying to encourage peace and negotiation.

I agree with you. As I said in the other post, Hitler's ideology provoked the holocaust, but another of his ideologies was lebensraum, not at all linked to Jewish people. In fact, lebensraum involved expanding eastwards, taking over land and getting rid of slavs - which happened until the Soviets defeated him.

MNHQ could you please stop deleting posts which are correct and not antisemitic.

dairydebris the reference was to Hitler's lebensraum ideology which was not to do with Jews it was to do with slavs/slav lands. One of Hitler's other ideology was to do with Jews and the holocaust. It was not an antisemetic post. Many Israeli commentators are also talking about Hitler and the holocaust.

To be fair the Avoz battalion and other far right groups within Ukraine have been very vocal about removing Zelensky as soon as possible.

This thread has gone around and about a bit, with posts being deleted (wrongly imho, for what its worth) making it difficult to track discussion points.

Someone has said that we should listen to people actually in Israel - if there is anyone here who is in Israel please could you say what most people there want, and whether or not they support the 2 state proposal, as required by the UN from the 1950s, and if so what borders would they want to apply and also what should happen in relation to Jerusalem?

I saw a poll recently which said 66 percent of people in Israel supported the 2 state proposal - is this still the case?

@havingmorekids there was a thread by an Israeli person who was happy to answer questions that you could ask on there. I can't find it now though. I think it was on AMA.

You took my comment out of context. Obviously what happened to the child is deplorable and inexcusable - as is what is happening to all civilians being hurt both sides.

What I said was the Hamas had distinguished between taking hostages and other things they did, with the atrocities of 7 Oct. I didn't assert it as fact. I said it in the context of what an Israeli commentator had said, and also said that Iran had voted for the 2 state solution.

I was hoping for more discussion here, on this thread!

Not just people in Israel - everyone posting here.

The latest poll I’ve seen says the opposite. 66% do not want a two state solution in Israel or the west bank

https://news.gallup.com/poll/650636/dim-outlook-peace-middle-east.aspx

Sorry, just to be clear it would be good to hear from everyone posting here about what they see as a good solution, whether they support the 2 state proposal, etc. Not just people in Israel. Everyone.

I will start. In today's climate and taking into consideration what has happened over the last 100 years, I support a 2 state solution which special conditions applying to Jerusalem recognising that it is a holy place for 3 different religions. I support cessation of all hostilities and negotiation with all stakeholders taking part and realistic proposals about how to ensure compliance and peace and cessation of hostilities.