Israeli strikes on Iran may have violated international law, UN mission says — Reuters
Posted by PapaverOneirium@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 419 comments
KronusTempus@reddit
May have? Let’s be absolutely clear here, there are only two scenarios under which the use of military force is justified under international law:
1) Approval by the UN Security Council (UNSC);
2 or, Self defense.
The first doesn’t apply because the attacks were not even discussed much less approved, which leaves us with the second;
Self defense applies to the use of military force in case of an armed attack (article 51 of the UN charter) which did not take place as Iran did not attack Israel.
Sometimes a preemptive strike is allowed under international law as long as there’s a very strong chance of an imminent armed attack which means that Israel had to believe that Iran was planning to attack Israel within days which is utter nonsense as there’s zero evidence of this and Israeli officials aren’t even claiming this. Their justification is that Iran was violating their treaty obligations by not allowing inspectors to inspect their nuclear facilities.
If neither of these conditions is satisfied, you just violated international law, not that that means much these days.
A violation of a treaty obligation is not a valid justification for a military operation because a number of other measures had to be considered first such as diplomacy, sanctions, and other coercive measures that do not amount to military force.
c0mputar@reddit
Saying Iran did not attack Israel is awfully convenient for nation states that attack using proxies.
I'm not justifying anything because arguing about who attacked who first in the Israeli conflict is fool-hardy, but they've definitely been attacking eachother before this past week.
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
Arming proxies doesn’t amount to an armed attack unless effective control can be established and based on case precedent, Iran wouldn’t have such control over groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Houthis.
c0mputar@reddit
Let's pretend your "case precedent" legal case is iron-clad... No country being relentlessly attacked by proxies that are armed and financed by the same primary sponsor would give a damn.
Proxies are often referenced in the history books in the context of nuclear states indirectly engaging eachother during the cold war. There is a small reason why no one escalated to attacking eachother directly... It's because of nukes, not because of the law.
So no, I don't accept that Iran is blameless. And be honest with yourself, neither would you, especially if it were your own country being attacked by proxies.
Mothrahlurker@reddit
"Let's pretend your "case precedent" legal case is iron-clad." it is, that is how international law works and anyone who comments on this with this level of confidence should be aware of it.
"No country being relentlessly attacked by proxies that are armed and financed by the same primary sponsor would give a damn."
That is bullshit.
"So no, I don't accept that Iran is blameless."
We're not talking about blameless, we're talking about that most definitely Israel did in fact violate international law with these attacks, you got an explanation as to why and instead of acknowledging that you are wrong, you act like a baby.
c0mputar@reddit
The case cited literally found the sponsor of proxy attacks guilty, so no it is obviously not obvious that the law shields Iran's culpability.
What was bs? That Iran financed and armed proxies specifically to attack Israel? Or that country's wouldn't accept being attacked relentlessly?
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
There’s a difference between having blame and being legally responsible for an armed attack.
c0mputar@reddit
Hinging your whole argument on my arbitrary choice of one word whilst ignoring the spirit of the entire comment is certainly one way to convince me.
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
I’m making a legal argument. If the spirit of your reply isn’t a legal argument, I’m frankly not interested.
Fritja@reddit
Neither am I.
c0mputar@reddit
When it comes to international law, if the law is unjust, countries simply ignore it and there is very little anyone can do about it unless the UNSC agrees with the judgement and takes action.
And since the US is on the UNSC, just about everything Israel does is technically legal. We interpreters if the law have no legitimacy to say what is or isn't legal.
To muddy the water further, you've got NATO backing Israel's attack on today's headlines, contrary to this post's headline.
So, talking about legal technicalities is quite frankly unproductive when the internationally recognized arbitrators of international law are not in alignment.
You need to win on the morality, ethics, and spirit of the discussion, and on that front no one can believably claim Israel hasn't been attacked indirectly by Iran for decades, and vice versa. Israel only just now decided to take a bold step to do something about it because it is now possible to do so.
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
You can find it unproductive, that’s fine. But that’s what I’m doing. So great chat, but it’s that’s it, I think we’re done. Cheers.
c0mputar@reddit
So long as your argument rests solely on your unrecognized interpretation of international law based upon your incomplete understanding of the facts, then there isn't anything to be said.
Determining the legality of an action ultimately requires unilateral agreement on the UNSC, or recognition of the legal authority that imposes legal judgments about that action. The US backs Israel on the UNSC and Israel doesn't recognize any international court that has ruled against them.
That's how international law works. If you want to get technical on the legality of Israel's actions, you have to start there, not with the text of whatever law you are indicting Israel of having broken.
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
How was it that you established I have an “incomplete understanding of the facts”? You seem keen to dismiss but not rebut.
And no, the UNSC does not determine legality nor does a lack of recognition alter the substance of the law.
c0mputar@reddit
The ICC does, but they have no jurisdiction over Israel or Iran, so there will be zero cases brought against either of them. So if the UNSC will do nothing, and the international laws do not apply to non-members, then what legal standing do you have towards arguing that any laws were broken?
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
In your mind, are laws only broken when there is a trial or something?
c0mputar@reddit
That's literally how it works in your own domestic courts. Why would it be any different internationally?
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
So, I murder someone and no trial happens. No crime happened?
c0mputar@reddit
Innocent until proven guilty of breaking the law.
Don't hate the player. This is the game you wanted to play. Legal technicalities and all.
Saying a law was broken, without the accused having any means to present a defense in the matter, nor means to share pertinent information, sounds awfully like a kangaroo court. No one disputes an attack took place, but there is definitely two sides to an argument about whether or not it was self defense.
I'd rather debate the substance of what is actually taking place, it is a lot more meaningful and is the only way of actually achieving a meeting of the minds between opposing sides, which might actually inch the conflict towards peace if enough minds meet.
Otherwise, Israel and their enemies remain in a state of conflict until one side is annihilated, but no one wants that except the extremists.
The bottom line is, to me, is that Iran is a perfectly justifiable target for Israeli attack even without considering anything about Iran's nuclear program.
Maybe if the fear of retaliation by Israel was meaningful and real, Iran wouldn't have been arming and financing proxies for decades. Global peace is often achieved not by international law, definitely not, but rather it has been achieved by the perception of the opposing side's military capabilities and expected costs. Between global powers, that has been mostly bulwarked by MAD doctrine, but for the rest of us, it has been achieved via the perceived military and/or financial might of adversaries and their allies.
And before you talk about what the US has done abroad that was equally shady to anything Iran or Israel has done... You won't find any American sympathizer here.
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
The smugness would go further if you were even close to being right in your interpretation, but you aren’t.
“No trial, no crime” isn’t a legal principle, it’s a cop-out. The idea that a law only matters if there’s a trial ignores how law functions entirely. Crimes don’t require a courtroom to exist. If someone murders another person and never gets prosecuted, we don’t just say “guess it wasn’t illegal.”
It’s also especially ridiculous when Israel has its rationale publically, and that rationale doesn’t support their attack. This isn’t a case of doubt over the who and why.
But as I’ve said, I’m only going to discuss the law. Legally you’re yet to make an argument that justified these attacks by Israel. Can you do so or should we just stop talking?
c0mputar@reddit
Absolving Iran of all responsibilities for arming and financing proxies with primary goals of attacking Israel because it wasn't directly carried out by Iranians or from an Iranian territory is a cop out.
At least my cop out is legally defensible. You cannot legally claim Israel broke any international law.
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
I have not dissolved them of all responsibility.
c0mputar@reddit
Says who? The ICC? Israel is not a member.
Saying Israel violated a law under the scope of the ICC is like saying a North Korean law was violated by an American for something done in South Korea.
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
I’m not sure where you got the ICC from. I’m referring to a violation of use of force from the UN Charter. That’s not covered by the ICC.
ReadLocke2ndTreatise@reddit
And this is what Iran would like the rest of the world to say. Fortunately, the UN has no enforcement authority against Israel or Uncle Sam.
Onion_Guy@reddit
What an asspull lmfao.
ReadLocke2ndTreatise@reddit
Not as foolish of an asspull as whatever Yahya Sinwar was thinking. Mf will go down in Palestinian history as the... is there even a historical precedent?
Onion_Guy@reddit
I’m not going to sit in my cozy American bed and criticize the methodology of a desperate resistance that gets shot when trying peaceful methods. Not condoning attacking civilians, of course.
ReadLocke2ndTreatise@reddit
It was a form of suicide, I guess. On a national scale.
Onion_Guy@reddit
Only if you think that the October 7 attack justifies everything that follows, and you think nothing justifies the October 7th attack.
ReadLocke2ndTreatise@reddit
No, I don't think anything justifies beheading a man with a shovel while yelling that God is great. Like, even if I were the son of a German woman who was raped and killed by a red army soldier during the occupation of Berlin, I probably wouldn't go to Russia and behead some random old farmer.
Onion_Guy@reddit
See, I don’t think anything justifies that either. So when Israel does 70 years of such atrocities and peaceful protests result in more Palestinians getting gunned down, how can I condemn a violent uprising against their oppressors?
ReadLocke2ndTreatise@reddit
The brutal truth that Sinwar showed all of us is, it's either gonna be Palestine or Israel. Not both. Let the most resourceful side win.
Onion_Guy@reddit
That’s a disgusting and blatantly genocidal take. Absolutely untrue. History shows that when apartheid systems are dissolved, the oppressed do not seek institutional revenge as long as they are recognized and reparations are made.
ReadLocke2ndTreatise@reddit
I wonder what the Arab, Muslim, Palestinian Israeli who sits in the highest court of Israel would have to say about that. But surely that can't be if it is an apartheid system. You'd think they'd bar Arab Muslim Israelis from being public servants, right?
Onion_Guy@reddit
No. Why would I think that? There are 65+ discriminatory laws on the books, none of which prohibit Knesset participation based on ethnicity. That is (fun fact!) not the only criterion for ethnocracy
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
Both Israel and the US reject the claim that Iran was involved in October 7th. But sure, whatever justification you need for an illegal act of aggression.
ReadLocke2ndTreatise@reddit
It's illegal only if Uncle Sam says it's illegal. Sorry to be brutally frank but that's just how it is. If a claim to authority is not backed up by enforcement capability, then it is no authority at all. Let's see the UN storm Netanyahu's residence and handcuff him in Israel, as the US does during extraordinary renditions.
The world is a chess board. There are three primary hegemons. International law is what these three hegemons jointly decide to abide by. The rest is just theater and a pretend game.
NotGalenNorAnsel@reddit
This would be fucking awesome. Just need the UN to hire Academi or whatever the fuck they're called now, boom bip bop. Israel has killed so many UN people in the last few years I'm sure they have enough cause to 'defend themselves' with some black hawk helicopters, maybe roof-knocking a bunch of settlements before hitting them with 2000 lb bombs as is the moral option, I'm told.
I like your idea for a more aggressive UN.
ReadLocke2ndTreatise@reddit
Realistically, this would probably result in the Delta Force raiding the ICC and liberating Netanyahu. The US warned UN bodies before and even passed a law mandating sanctions against the ICC for apprehension of allied personnel.
NotGalenNorAnsel@reddit
Invade the Hague Act. The US is such a piece of shit on a lot of ways.
Zipz@reddit
Israel just killed a iranian commander who they claim was involved on oct 7th....
Did you miss that?
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
Israel didn’t start to say this until after they began bombing Iran (illegally).
Zipz@reddit
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/hamas-fighters-trained-in-iran-before-oct-7-attacks-e2a8dbb9?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=ASWzDAgNU5Mp-wrouvkjCIh9y2BEiwXdfeetcvwZLA0dqUIiCZGahVpGN3pQDmIZiXc%3D&gaa_ts=68599466&gaa_sig=QExTgNC7Fel3RIwecm2PlPBI5S0JLb2ZbECn4Pv8YddU-f2LADqr6gy8jk4r-mQ_uqtptkuPx4R01-Vv-XaLgQ%3D%3D
WEIRD
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
Mate, that article doesn’t support the notion Iran directed October 7th. The only claim comes from literally 2 days ago in the midst of Israel trying to justify its illegal campaign against Iran.
Israel’s position up to now, as well as the current position of the US, is that Iran did not direct October 7th. They were involved with aiding and training Hamas, but that is not the same as directing the attack.
Zipz@reddit
You said "involved"
I see you are changing the goalpost because you were wrong earlier.
Please don't do that. If you didn't comment this last comment would think you just misspoke but the fact that now you are actively lying about what you said make it very clear you lied.
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
I’m having several conversations about the involvement of Iran so I apologize for getting you mixed up and using stronger language than I used prior in the thread.
To be clear, my position is that Iran funds Hamas, but that Hamas did October 7th without Iran’s direction or support (beyond the funding they give to the group). This was the Israeli position until 2 days ago.
Cannon_Fodder888@reddit
Senior IRCG brass were inside Hezbollah command centers directing Missile attacks against Israel since Oct 8 and subsequently killed in Israeli air strikes. This shows Iran had significant control over Hezbollah Operations.
Iran's own ambassador to Lebanon was wearing a pager that exploded in the famous attack.
You and I might not have enough evidence showing that, but you can be assured that Israel and others certainly do.
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
Are you aware of the US’ involvement with the Contras?
Cannon_Fodder888@reddit
Am aware of the Contras. Are you trying to give Iran a free pass?
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
Are you aware of the case Nicaragua v. US?
No.
Hertigan@reddit
So you’re saying that the US attacked Iran in 1953?
And, you know, dozens of other countries as well?
FlagerantFragerant@reddit
Ya they've been at it so long that it's pretty hard to say who started what. But the point with this particular escalation is that its quite disproportionate
c0mputar@reddit
It's hard to quantify how much of the destructive power behind the proxies are attributable to Iran over these past few decades, and how much more damage Iran would have done if more capable in the past and how much damage they will continue to do in the future if left indirectly unaffected, and so the puzzle of proportionality is not a straightforward equation to piece together.
That was unfortunately a long sentence.
c0mputar@reddit
It's hard to quantify how much of the destructive power behind the proxies are attributable to Iran over these past few decades, and how much more damage Iran would have done if more capable in the past and how much damage they will continue to do in the future if left indirectly unaffected, and so the puzzle of proportionality is not a straightforward equation to piece together.
souperjar@reddit
Iran arms groups aligned with it's strategic interests. Hamas did not tell Iran about it's attack plans and Iran has not been able to order Hezbollah to attack during Israel's war against Iran.
If groups armed by countries were extensions of countries themselves in this way than Russia's invasion of Ukraine is justified by the attacks of far right paramilitaries who were armed by Ukraine, but who Zelensky did not tell to attack across the Russian border.
How long does this legitimacy to respond last? Is Iran actually legitimized in attacking the US proxy of Israel because the US overthrew its government and made the Shah dictator before the Iranian revolution?
I don't think there is a way to frame Iran as the aggressor under international law given the US history of fucking around in the region and also arming Israel in a similar way to how Iran arms it's allies.
c0mputar@reddit
I don't know how you read your own comment and still think it's straightforward to claim that Iran cannot legally be attacked. As your own comment illustrates, these things aren't black and white, and justifications for war can be found in every nook and cranny.
What might set the Israeli and Iranian conflict apart from the rest of the ones you mentioned is that it is on-going. Iran hasn't stopped, the partnerships with these proxies are active.
Houthi's "strategic" interests aside, it is not at all inconceivable that a condition for procurement of Iranian weapons and support is to attack Israel.
Hezbollah is in disarray, that is part of why Israel chose now to attack Iran. A lack of response from Hezbollah is an indictment of their ability to do so, and also of Iran's degraded influence in the region.
Hamas didn't tell Iran about the October attack? What about all the other attacks? Did someone from Hamas or Iran say this? Don't believe everything you read.
OsgrobioPrubeta@reddit
Israel and US have armed and funded those same groups. These two have been caught arming and funding many more terrorist groups than Iran did, few days ago Israel admitted being aiding a group pro Al-Qaeda and enemy of Hamas at Gaza, just to further destabilize Gaza.
Continuing to play the victim and accepting no responsibility, while trying to hide it and pin it solely on others?
Artistic_Donut_9561@reddit
Just to add this is the same non proliferation treaty that Israel refuses to agree to itself. Their nuclear arsenal was developed illegally and still isn't subject to inspections at all
860v2@reddit
That’s because they’re responsible and don’t openly threaten other countries with them.
YakubianBonobo@reddit
What is this nonsense
860v2@reddit
Great argument.
ArielRR@reddit
Samson option is literally a threat
860v2@reddit
No, you cannot “threaten” self defense.
SowingSalt@reddit
MAD is literally the Samson Option, but with more mathematics and game theory.
Beautiful_Bag6707@reddit
If real it's not a threat but a response. It doesn't occur unless it's done to them. This was the same "mutually assured destruction" plan between the US and USSR.
NoHetro@reddit
It's just another name for the M.A.D. which all nuclear powers use.
Soe-Vand@reddit
Imagine being so dumb to think it’s unique to Israel to fire of nukes if they were being overrun.
Russia, China, India etc etc would do the same if their capitals were about to fall.
Fenrir2401@reddit
Only for those who feel the need to attack them.
Rovcore001@reddit
Didn’t take too long for the mental gymnastics to start
TheJewPear@reddit
How is it illegal exactly? Israel isn’t a side to the NPT.
SenoraRaton@reddit
Because the United States has laws on the books that prohibit it from cooperating, or providing material aid to countries who do not particpate in oversight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symington_Amendment
The Symington ammendment clearly states that all countries who the US assists militarily MUST submit to IAEA safeguards and oversight.
The US is violation of its own law.
TheJewPear@reddit
So it’s not illegal for Israel.
Fritja@reddit
3.2 - Agendaposting
3.2.1 Agendaposting is the process of only, or mostly submitting posts that conform to a certain agenda or political stance. This is strictly prohibited.
3.2.2 If more than 67% of recent posts are considered to be exclusively pushing the same agenda, then action will be taken.
TheJewPear@reddit
What agenda am I pushing exactly? Please share.
Fritja@reddit
3.2 - Agendaposting
3.2.1 Agendaposting is the process of only, or mostly submitting posts that conform to a certain agenda or political stance. This is strictly prohibited.
3.2.2 If more than 67% of recent posts are considered to be exclusively pushing the same agenda, then action will be taken.
BabylonianWeeb@reddit
The agenda posting rule refers to posts not comments.
Fritja@reddit
Yes, it is.
JPolReader@reddit
No the US is not.
Israel has not traded equipment, materials or technology after August 4, 1977.
The best information available is that Israel acquired nukes in the 1960s.
MasterDefibrillator@reddit
In breach of atleast one UN security council resolution.
40_Thousand_Hammers@reddit
Sir have you considered that brown people doesn't have the right to defend against military industrial complex from white people and their fake proxy state ?
Beautiful_Bag6707@reddit
The fact that you think that Iran is full of "brown people" shows just how little you understand of the Middle East.
Look at the Egyptian (supposedly "brown" person who firebombed old people in Colorado). He was the palest brown person I've ever seen.
MENA people come in all shades. The color divide is not as prevalent as is the religious, tribal, and cultural divide.
40_Thousand_Hammers@reddit
You dont understand irony and i'm so sorry.
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
Nah you made it about skin color and got called out. There’s no irony here, not all Israelis are “white” either bro.
Hertigan@reddit
If he had said “non westerners” would you feel less bad about it?
Because the MIC point still stands
Also a lot of current Israelis have migrated from the US and Europe, so pretty white
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
You’re assuming everyone from Europe and the United States is automatically “white” now too? You’re hilarious
Hertigan@reddit
I’m not sure if you’re being facetious on purpose but no, I don’t give a shit about their skin colour
I’m saying that tour country has a god complex and it’s citizens think they have a god given right to the world
Ergo what’s happening in Gaza and the West Bank
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
I don’t know if you’re being facetious or just purposely ignoring the extenuating circumstances surrounding why Gaza and the West Bank ended up the way they did. It’s not solely the fault of Israel. You want Palestinians to have agency, but don’t see that they not only squandered all the agency they’ve ever been given, they made it so no more would be given.
Hertigan@reddit
The extenuating circumstances of aggressive, warmongering expansionism and stealing people’s land
Right
Just like the extenuating circumstances of toppling governments and destabilizing countries because of “the communists”, or “the terrorists”, or whatever the excuse you’ll come up with next
It’s never your fault, is it?
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
Here you go making up history, not going to have this same tired argument with another bot. You can believe what you want, the rest of us will know you’re wrong.
Hertigan@reddit
Which part did I make up?
Also love the classic “everyone that doesn’t suck US dick is a bot”. Really well constructed response
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
Oh no you’ve been on Reddit longer than me? Surely that only adds to your credibility!
Hertigan@reddit
Answer the question instead of calling me a bot, buddy
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
In online gaming and social media, "bot" slang is used to describe someone who is performing poorly, acting predictably, or being unoriginal, often in a derogatory way
40_Thousand_Hammers@reddit
So the term is used in the correct target, in this case you.
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
Ah yeah because I’m running to the “stolen land, white European argument” that’s the bot argument that you’re both making
40_Thousand_Hammers@reddit
Your country LITERALLY used manifest destiny to steal lands from Mexico and indigenous people.
Actual historical fact, nothing botty about it unless you are incredible mentally stupid.
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
That’s pretty rich coming from a Brazilian, Portuguese did it about 250 years before America was even a thought.
40_Thousand_Hammers@reddit
The difference is that Brazil recognize that the Portuguese fucked up and helps indigenous people as much as it can (we even use our taxes to pay them monthly).
What's your country has ever done to these people besides racism ?
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
This is also a hilarious distillation of the truth. What happens when ranchers and loggers meet indigenous people? Isn’t the unchecked deforestation under Lula basically treating their very way of life? Incidences of murders committed against indigenous tribes have also INCREASED 50%+ every year for the last 10 years. Again you’re rich for trying to make an argument that Brazil somehow treats natives better and is more what? Moral? lol
40_Thousand_Hammers@reddit
What happens when ranchers and loggers meet indigenous people ? Either the activation of the indigenous state police or the direct warfare confrontation of both. Maybe if US and Europeans countries wouldn't buy from said illegals vendors we wouldn't have to deal with these kind of things.
And we threat them better, the only thing your country said was sorry.
We have indigenous native reservers, we pay them tax money and gave them access to more complex services of healthcare and if they so desire there are multiple enterprises between government and indigenous people for research of medicine together, such as curing 3rd degree burns with a mix of modern healthcare and old indigenous fish scale treatment.
Also, your country does pattents of medicine resources from MY country in the Amazon forest in indigenous reserves without paying a jack shit for these resources (either the nation or the natives) and somehow the US is the good guys ? Please touch grass.
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
Yeah the “indigenous Police”
Jan 29, 2024Violence against Indigenous people in Brazil continues to escalate. On January 21, 200 large landowners and members of a police militia used WhatsApp to coordinate an armed attack on the Pataxó people. One of their leaders was killed and her brother was seriously wounded by gunfire. The violence stems from land disputes and resource exploitation.
Sounds like they’re in on it too, again don’t throw stones in a glsss house.
40_Thousand_Hammers@reddit
Here goes you saying shit about other people's country without knowing shit.
FUNAI is the instituition that have access and political power to act as a police, they work with the PF (Brazil FBI) to fight these cases as a whole, not only that, indigenous people who join Brazil army have the right to kick start their own military group in self defense against these cases.
The news in question uses the old dictatorship Military Police that still acts as a force in Brazil (thanks again US for couping Brazil in 64 and making it easier for ranchers to kill indigenous people).
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
Same thing yours does bud.
JOINT RESOLUTION To acknowledge a long history of official depredations and ill-conceived policies by the Federal Government regarding Indian tribes and offer an apology to all Native Peoples on behalf of the United States.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/14/text
40_Thousand_Hammers@reddit
We also don't pretend it was cool unlike a certain country.
Not even Portugal does.
Hertigan@reddit
You understand that that was the Portuguese Imperial Court, and in your case it was the Government of the United States, right?
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
And both are forms of what? Colonialism. Who owned Brazil? The Portuguese Imperial court, which was the de facto government. You’re not making a very good argument.
Hertigan@reddit
I think you’re just a little slow
The guys that colonized us, from which we got independence from (whom we really dislike ) vs. the guys your country still treats as the paragons of virtue and justice
See the difference? I can fetch some crayons if you think it might help
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
Who’s treating the United States government as a paragon of justice? I’m pointing out your hypocrisy as it’s commonplace in most countries historiesz
Hertigan@reddit
Great point!
So you’re telling me that your cognitive dissonance won’t allow you to defend tour dumb ass point anymore, so you need to throw some idiotic tiktok insults around?
Damn you’re a clever guy aren’t you?
Cannon_Fodder888@reddit
How many missiles does Iran have to fire at Israel through Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthi's since Oct 7 and previous decades before Israel is allowed to defend themselves?
Onion_Guy@reddit
You know that Israel is responsible for some 80% of cross border rocket fire, right? You act like Israel has no proxies and never takes aggressive action despite that being their entire MO for the better part of a century
Cannon_Fodder888@reddit
Who is Israel firing rockets at ?. And who are Israel's Proxies as I have never heard of any?
Onion_Guy@reddit
Have you not been paying attention for the last two years? Sorry in advance if you’re askin in good faith, this gets frustrating when people just have no idea (or more often one side) of a complicated conflict.
Israel has fired more than 8000 attacks over just the Lebanese border (at Hezbollah) directly, and that’s just one border and direct engagement. Israel has attacked Syria, Iran, Yemen, occupied Gaza, and Lebanon both in direct military action and indirectly through arming proxy groups like the peoples mujahedin, Kurdistan freedom party, NCRI, the Islamic State (yes, ISIS), and the Popular Forces.
Cannon_Fodder888@reddit
Israel has fired not rockets at Lebanon (Hezbollah) They have though conducted airstrikes and fired artillery after putting up with some 800 rockets being fired at them by Hezbollah since Oct 8.
Only attacked Yemen when the Houthis started firing Iranian ballistic missiles at them. Only attacked Iran when Iran firing ballistic missiles at them for killing Nasrallah and a Hamas leader.
kapsama@reddit
Israel has been conducting genocide since Oct 8th. Hardly just sitting around getting attacked.
Cannon_Fodder888@reddit
Well, that's just your opinion on it. Most logical people call it "war"
kapsama@reddit
It's not my opinion. It's the conclusion of every genocide expert in the world. Even Israeli ones.
Onion_Guy@reddit
This is your brain on supremacy lol.
Only attacked Iran when Iran retaliated for bombing the embassy in Tehran, lol. Hilarious. 800 rockets which were attempting to stop Israel’s genocide, answered by over 8000 airstrikes? And sorry for not distinguishing rocket attacks from airstrikes sufficiently.
ijzerwater@reddit
how many dead Palestinians must there be for them to be allowed to defend themselves against Israel? If we consider the terrorist groups like Irgun Israel proxies, when was that point reached?
Effective_Jury4363@reddit
Besides the fact that iran was literally in nuclear talks until the day before that, and the sanctions they were already facing, what should have been done?
BigTex88@reddit
Iran should not have enriched uranium to >60%. Or they could have agreed to buy enriched uranium from other countries to use for civilian nuclear purposes.
You are acting as if Iran(!!!!) has been acting in good faith. It's absurd.
Wompish66@reddit
As a reminder, Iran only did this after the US tore up the nuclear treaty, murdered a top level Iranian military official and threatened to invade the country countless times.
BigTex88@reddit
Again, you are acting as if Iran has done nothing wrong. Bad faith troll.
Wompish66@reddit
Are you taking the piss or just monumentally ignorant?
anime_titties-ModTeam@reddit
Your submission/comment has been removed as it violates:
Make sure to check our sidebar from time to time as it provides detailed submission guidelines and may change.
Please feel free to send us a modmail if you have any questions or concerns.
BigTex88@reddit
I'm sorry, are you implying that Iran is an innocent actor in all of this?
Longjumping-Jello459@reddit
My take on the situation was that Iran figured that if the most powerful country was just going to tear up an agreement that was being abided by and threaten it then developing nukes seems like a good idea for protection.
OsgrobioPrubeta@reddit
They agreed, guess who started to make things up and even went against US policy, president and international agreements? Israel, Satanyahu even went to US Congress and criticized Obama.
Effective_Jury4363@reddit
I believe you misread my comment.
I am asking what israel/us could have done.
Longjumping-Jello459@reddit
Well look if Trump hadn't withdrew the US from the previous nuclear agreement which by all measure Iran was abiding by then we wouldn't be here.
Private_HughMan@reddit
So Israel attacked them in the middle of peaceful negotiations? Two days before another meeting was scheduled?
Effective_Jury4363@reddit
Israel attacked them a day after the ultimatum issued by trump ended.
The us were aware of the attack.
Wompish66@reddit
Which is another war crime known as perfidy.
Effective_Jury4363@reddit
How? The us issued a clear ultimatum- reach a deal, or risk military action.
This is by no means perfidity.
Wompish66@reddit
They were engaged in negotiations.
Issuing an ultimatum to a sovereign state and then attacking it if it doesn't comply is a blatant disregard for intentional laws.
It's the exact same thing these hypocrites have been rightly lambasting the Russians for.
Effective_Jury4363@reddit
So is violating the NPT. You know, the reason for the talks?
Wompish66@reddit
Why does that make Israel who flat out deny the existence of their nuclear program?
Effective_Jury4363@reddit
Fully legal.
Kind of like how the UAE cannot be prosecuted for genocide, because they didn't fully sign the treaty.
ExtremeAcceptable289@reddit
Ok but they were still working on reaching a deal
Effective_Jury4363@reddit
"Working" on a deal.
Being at the table does not mean you are actually negotiating.
CharmCityKid09@reddit
It's hilarious that they talk about perfidy when the background for this is Iran's nuclear program.
Private_HughMan@reddit
So in the middle of peaceful negotiations, two days before another scheduled meeting.
Yes, I know the US was aware. Two powerful terror states co-laborating isn't unusual.
BigTex88@reddit
This is insane.
Wompish66@reddit
Is it? The US and Israel collaborating to attack a middle eastern country under false pretenses happened only 20 years ago.
Private_HughMan@reddit
But it's different this time! Israeli intelligence informed the Americans that this Middle Eastern country may have weapons of mass destruction! /s
BigTex88@reddit
The poster me referring to the US and Israel as "terror-states" outs them as not a serious person, a troll, or an insane lunatic.
FederalSandwich1854@reddit
Is Israel open to negotiations on inspections of their by nuclear weapons? And you would be ok with sanctions on Israel if they refused any negotiations on inspections of their nuclear weapons?
Salazarsims@reddit
No but they aren’t a signatory to the NNPT either so they don’t have to. Developing nukes isn’t illegal under international law.
Semi_Accomplished@reddit
The first bullet point tells you all you need to know about “international law”. You can go to war, but only if it’s cool with US/China/Russia/UK/France.
stuppyd@reddit
Welcome to the realist school of IR lol
BigTex88@reddit
Yes. Who do you think enforces "international law"?
BendicantMias@reddit
No one. That isn't law, it's supremacy. And since they don't impose it on themselves, it isn't even consistently applied as law is meant to be. It's like saying in order for a crime to count as rape, Epstein and his friends have to declare it so. And ofc if Epstein does it, it doesn't count as rape.
KronusTempus@reddit
Well technically even national law is supremacy, of the state. We all agree to give up a certain amount of freedoms in order to have order which is maintained through law made by a sovereign. In the past this meant a monarch, today it means a state or a parliament (as in the UK for example). This is the social contract.
The idea with international law was that this “policeman” would be a collective body called the UNSC. Today this “policeman” decided that it’s not worth maintaining this system because they could get more by using force. The national equivalent would be something like the police realizing that they are the only ones with weapons and can essentially do what they want and take what they want.
FormerLawfulness6@reddit
The analogy doesn't really work. International is a mutual agreement between theoretically equal sovereigns. Enforcement is weak because it operates on the basis of consent. If one party breaks the law, the other parties' lawful options are to withhold cooperation, trade, and diplomatic ties.
National law does not even presume mutual consent, except perhaps is a purely rhetorical social contract sense. People are subject to the jurisdiction of an authority that both makes and enforces the laws. At best, individuals may have the rights to petition, protest, collectivize and withhold their labor. But even these are permissions grated conditionally and subject to suspension if the government feels its authority is threatened.
The analogy with the UNSC also does not work as these actions are not coming from the UN. One member of the UNSC, the US, is using a unilateral veto to prevent any group action while acting as a completely unaccountable vigilante. The rest of the members are powerless to stop it because the US has a stranglehold on the world's financial system and an arsenal of doomsday weapons.
KronusTempus@reddit
This is wrong on so many levels but I don’t have much time. International law is not “just” a mutual agreement between sovereigns, that’s just one source of intl. law. There are certain rules called jus cogens such as the prohibition on piracy for instance which every state is obligated to respect and enforce. This doesn’t arise out of any agreement between two states.
FormerLawfulness6@reddit
No one said anything about two states. International law is, in its entirety, an agreement among all of the member states to abide by a set of rules. It's based on treaties that established the UN and the rules based order it was meant to facilitate.
Jus Cogens, or peremptory norms, are the foundational rules by which all states are expected to abide. But they are still based in the voluntary agreement between member states that these are the rules, and the voluntary enforcement by each member. There is no higher authority that imposes and issues punishment for derrogation.
It is the violation of a mutual obligation to which there is a norms based expectation that other states will respond, if only by withholding their own participation in the unlawful act. Jus Cogens means member states are obliged not to wait for a final ruling by the ICJ, ICC, or UNSC because passive facilitation is itself unlawful.
Acceptable-Peak-6375@reddit
Look up Perfidy, there is a reason two states at war will still agree to the rules of war.
Once one side starts using perfidy as a combat strategy, it can lead to catastrophic civilian casualties and the other side is immediately not responsible for the opponents who use Perfidy.
flaamed@reddit
no one bc international law isnt real
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
Iran did attack Israel. It retaliated once for the embassy bombing, which was justified and again after Israel killed Nasrallah, which was far less justified. Israel can easily make a defense argument based solely on Irans retaliation for the killing of Nasrallah.
Overton_Glazier@reddit
No they can't, what a load of idiotic nonsense.
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
Of course they can Iran is the head of the proxy army, self defense can be directed at the state sponsor, Iran has proved its direct link to Hamas and Hezbollah multiple times. Easy to make the argument that the actions of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis are actions ordered or supported by Iran…
Overton_Glazier@reddit
No it fucking can't. It's absolutely delusional.
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
You’re delusional for not thinking there’s an alternate to your narrow world view bro lol Iran has been trying to wipe Israel off the map for 50 years. It’s their stated plan as a government.
Overton_Glazier@reddit
Bad hasbara
AVeryBadMon@reddit
> calls someone an idiot and delusional
> refuses to elaborate
> dismisses arguments and explanations as propaganda
The absolute state of this sub
Unable_Duck9588@reddit
Its the only major news sub where hasbara lies are met with the resistance they deserve.
This is how the majority of the world feels btw, you can go to worldnews if you want reddits hasbara and indian misinformation army agreeing with all your bullshit.
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
What did I lie about? Go read any of Khomeinis speeches for the last 50 years. It’s their own words not mine.
Longjumping-Jello459@reddit
There's a difference between stating/desiring to do something and being in the process to do it in international law. Iran isn't/wasn't able to use nuclear weapons which is the only realistic way to wipe Israel of the map.
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
Yeah I’m gonna go ahead and believe their official government position which is the removal of Israel from the world. They said it, it’s not my opinion.
Longjumping-Jello459@reddit
Again there's a difference LEGALLY between stating they WANT to do something and doing it/beginning to do it(fueling up the ICBMs with nuclear tipped warheads).
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
Again, shooting 1000+ ballistic missiles now, funding Hamas’ invasion, funding Hezbollahs rockets and missiles, funding and arming the Houthis to attack international shipping and Israel, those are all LEGAL actions tied to Iran that Israel has a right to defend itself against. Unless your whole argument is Israel should just surrender!
Longjumping-Jello459@reddit
Iran has been responding to Israel hitting it directly over these last what 2 wks. Previous hits have also been in response to Iran being hit whether in Syria or the assassination of that high ranking Hamas leader in Tehran.
Funding, supplying, and training Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthies doesn't mean that Iran has effective control over those groups.
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
Yeah man review the history, Iranian proxies have been shooting rockets at Israeli civilians for ~20 years. When they get bored of that they kidnap, stab, ram, shoot and suicide bomb. I don’t really care about the last 2 weeks this was going to happen at some point due to a lot more than the last 2 weeks.
Longjumping-Jello459@reddit
Proxies are used to put distance between those that sponsor/support them and the target.
Your argument can be used to justify Russia hitting Germany, UK, US, and anyone else who is providing support to Ukraine atm.
JPolReader@reddit
Russia is welcome to try. There is no world government to stop them.
Of course, they would be dumb to try for many reasons.
Longjumping-Jello459@reddit
Well yeah it would be epically stupid to do. I was just using it as a point/example to the other person.
Last I heard Israel was saying that Iran's nuclear program was why they had started to hit Iran not the proxies.
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
No because aid to a country defending itself from attack isn’t the same as aid going to attack civilians. Russia broke international law by invading Ukraine, aiding Ukraine’s defense doesn’t break international law.
Hamas broke international law by invading Israel and shooting rockets/mortars, Hezbollah the same and the Houthis have broken international law by interrupting maritime commerce and attacking the United States and Israel. None of these were in defense of their respective countries.
Longjumping-Jello459@reddit
No, your argument is that Iran is responsible for whatever Hamas etc have done because Iran has supplied, trained, and funded them so by your argument those that have supplied, trained, and provided financial support to Ukraine are just as responsible and open to attack.
Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthies are terrorists organizations that do terrorists things that much is true. Hamas on Oct 7th committed acts of genocide which they should be held to account for along with their war crimes, but Iran is unlikely to be able to be legally accountable for those acts.
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
They’re responsible for breaching international laws on armed conflicts via their proxies. Iran cannot be deemed responsible for the kidnappings, murders and rapes which are violations of human rights unless proven to have exerted complete control. Them arming proxies to fight Israel and them fighting Israel actively is enough to be convicted of breaking international law. Again you’re not actually comprehending something that you’re trying to argue.
Longjumping-Jello459@reddit
So again anyone who has armed groups of the years would be responsible under your argument. The US, USSR, and other Western countries during the Cold War supported proxies to fight ideological wars.
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
They were convicted of using proxies bro… look how USA vs Nicaragua ended up, I’ve only linked it to you 200x
Longjumping-Jello459@reddit
The US literally did things ourselves in Nicaragua not just providing supplies and training. We mined a harbor there for instance.
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
“A combination of U.S.-financed guerrillas fighting the leftist Sandinista government of Nicaragua and more highly trained Latin American employes of the CIA operating from CIA-owned speedboats have laid the crude bottom-lying mines in Corinto and other ports, according to the sources”
We trained them, we didn’t mine them ourselves.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1984/04/07/cia-helped-to-mine-ports-in-nicaragua/762f775f-6733-4dd4-b692-8f03c8a0aef8/
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
Why would the United States be guilty of arming a foreign proxy to directly attack a sovereign state but Iran wouldn’t be? Let’s hear some facts not your opinion.
Longjumping-Jello459@reddit
I am using YOUR argument to make a point in regards to Ukraine.
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
Yeah but you’re not making a good point. In defense of invasion it’s not breaking international law to help the defender of a country invaded by breaking the law.
Longjumping-Jello459@reddit
Russia believes it's justified(delusional as that is) in its invasion of Ukraine because as they have stated the treatment of those in the disputed areas warranted their intervention so anyone supporting Ukraine is using it as a proxy against Russia.
Your argument could be used by Russia to justify hitting those helping Ukraine.
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
Yeah doesn’t matter what Russia thinks in this instance. The law is clear that Russia is an illegal aggressor.
Unable_Duck9588@reddit
Again, nonody buys your propaganda, no matter how cheap it is to make and digest.
Off to worldnews with you.
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
The Islamic Republic of Iran's foreign policy doctrine includes calling for the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state.[1][undue weight? – discuss] This position emerged from the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which transformed Iran–Israel relations from close partners during the Pahlavi monarchy to principal ideological adversaries.[2] Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic, denounced Israel as an illegitimate "Zionist regime" and cut off diplomatic relations. Since then, this stance has been embedded in official rhetoric, military programs, state-sponsored education, and symbolic events such as Quds Day.
Unable_Duck9588@reddit
Your attempts at misinformation and misleading people by appealing to imaginary threats is disappointing and outright embarassing.
Israel was wrong to strike Iran, israel has been responsible for tens of thousands of lives lost and constantly lies about it, and Israel and its propadanda arm, such as yourself, trying to smear everyone and everything against its inhumame conduct with falae equivilences to another monsterous regime (and yet, still somehow better than Israel despite all its hideous crimes) is just sad to see.
Continue lying, nobody cares for you anymore, amd in a few years, you will have always been against this.
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
Yeah dude keep arguing in bad faith and ignoring reality. What does the Houthi flag say again?
Unable_Duck9588@reddit
The houthis are awful for chanting those hurtful things.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_Arabs
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/thousands-of-israeli-nationalists-chant-death-to-arabs-during-annual-procession-through-jerusalem
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/police-arrest-dozens-jerusalem-clashes-israeli-nationalists-chant-death-arabs-2021-04-23/
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/29/israel-jerusalem-march-death-arabs-00035862
https://www.timesofisrael.com/at-jerusalem-flag-march-chants-of-death-to-arabs-and-assaults-on-palestinians/amp/
https://jacobin.com/2024/11/maccabi-hooligans-amsterdam-media-gaza
https://www.ynetnews.com/culture/article/rk3jbpanjl
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/16/the-language-being-used-to-describe-palestinians-is-genocidal
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2025/05/21/in-israel-rhetoric-dehumanizing-palestinians-and-calls-for-eradicating-gaza-have-become-commonplace_6741510_4.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0r1xl5wgnko.amp
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
And here comes the straw man argument. Common line in every article “ultra-nationalist Israelis chanting anti-Arab slogans” you’re really wanting to posit the most extreme marginal part of the Israeli population as indicative of it as a whole?
Unable_Duck9588@reddit
Within the links are israeli statesmen and ministers talking in genocidal language, and i can go back decades.
So yeah, spare me your weak arguments and bad faith discussion.
Back to worldnews.
Overton_Glazier@reddit
You copy/paste the same talking points that every Pro-IDF account spams 24/7. No shit I'm going to just call it what it is and not elaborate further.
AVeryBadMon@reddit
Make sure to check under your bed for hasbara bots tonight
Overton_Glazier@reddit
That's the most original thing you've said so far.
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
Are you aware of how high the standard for state attribution is? It’s almost certainly not met by Iran.
Nileghi@reddit
In that case Israel is not responsible for Sabra and Shatilla as it was done entirely by the Phalangists. Israel had absolutely no part in the massacre as it simply (and importantly for your argument!) stood around doing nothing.
Thats the same standard you use to claim Iran isn't responsible for the countless attacks its proxies use on Israel.
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
Israel did have troops on the ground that actively aided, but I’m not sure who is trying to legally attribute that attack to Israel. I’ll also note that “responsible” is a vague term. Do you mean legally, morally, what?
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
It most certainly is lol there’s plenty of evidence you have to be pretty willfully ignorant to miss it
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
Such as?
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
Legally, no they can’t. Claims of self defense must be towards imminent threats. Attacking them because of a limited attack from nearly a year ago isn’t responding to an imminent threat.
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis are imminent threats shooting Iranian weapons at Israel
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
So are we just moving past this?
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
Sure why would he be a Martyr of Iran if not for Hezbollah being connected to Iran? It’s pretty easy. Who died in the with him again? An IRGC officer responsible for arming Hezbollah.
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
“Connection”, nor funding and arming doesn’t constitute effective control which is the basis for state attribution.
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
lol ok bro, the Houthis just decided to lucked into Iranian ballistic missiles to shoot at Israel after Israel killed IRGC officers in Syria.
Longjumping-Jello459@reddit
There's a legal difference in international law between a state having control over a proxy group(actually telling them what to do which has to be proven) and funding a proxy group.
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
Not really, why not read the actual laws instead of guessing. In international armed conflicts if the proxies are funded with the intention of breaking international law, norms or curtains the “assisting” state is guilty irrespective of proving control.
Longjumping-Jello459@reddit
Nicaragua v. United States (ICJ): The International Court of Justice (ICJ) established the "effective control" test, requiring proof that the state directed or controlled specific operations of the proxy group, not just providing general support. For example, the Court found the US had supported the Contras in Nicaragua, but there was no "direct link" to specific operations, meaning the US wasn't responsible for every violation of international humanitarian law committed by the Contras.
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
“For every violation” it says right there in your selected sentence. They were guilty of violating normative international law customs.
Longjumping-Jello459@reddit
It's hairs being split. Also it has to be established that Iran has EFFECTIVE control of these groups which has yet to be shown/done.
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
No it’s not, it’s you not understanding. Why would the United States be found guilty of anything if it didn’t have full control?
Longjumping-Jello459@reddit
No, it's a legal requirement to be held accountable for what a proxy group does which you seem to not understand.
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
“The Court had 15 final decisions upon which it voted. The Court found in its verdict that the United States was "in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State", "not to intervene in its affairs", "not to violate its sovereignty", "not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce", and "in breach of its obligations under Article XIX of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Parties signed at Managua on 21 January 1956." In Statement 9, the Court stated that while the U.S. encouraged human rights violations by the Contras by the manual entitled Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare, this did not make such acts attributable to the U.S.”
United States guilty of violating international law, not guilty of human rights violations, like I’ve been saying. Iran is guilty of violating international law through its proxies, you just can’t pin war crimes on them from Hamas.
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
No it isn’t read the entire document. The us was held accountable for the contra in Nicaragua, the ICJ didn’t find it had complete control and that’s why the more serious crimes weren’t able to be pinned solely on the United States. The United States was found guilty of violating use of force laws for arming the proxies. It’s all out there for you to read bro.
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
“The ICJ found the US to be in breach of international law, including the prohibition on the use of force, and ordered reparations to Nicaragua” same as Iran, the “assisting” state of the proxy is legally culpable
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
https://www.justsecurity.org/56272/legal-limits-military-assistance-proxy-forces-pathways-state-official-responsibility/
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
At least try and actually reply to what I said.
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
Reasonableness: When a state is considering responding to an internationally wrongful act, the standard of attribution is based on "reasonableness." This means the state should act as a reasonable state would in similar circumstances when attributing responsibility. Factors considered for attribution: The determination of attribution under the "reasonableness" standard depends on factors such as the reliability, quantity, directness, nature (e.g., technical or human intelligence), and specificity of available information. The scope, scale, and impact of the incident are also important considerations.
None of the proxies armed are reasonable bro. They’re conducting warfare against international law and against the standards of reasonability. There’s no grey area, Iran sends weapons and training to terrorist ground to kill civilians. There a ton of evidence, that’s all that’s required for a defense argumentzx
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
“The IRGC issued its statement just minutes after the operation began, stating: “The great Islamic community, the noble and martyred Iranian nation, moments ago, after a period of restraint in the face of the violation of the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the assassination of the martyred fighter, Dr. Ismail Haniyeh, by the Zionist regime, and under the country's right to legitimate defense according to the United Nations Charter, has responded to the intensification of the regime's atrocities, supported by the United States in the massacre in Lebanon and Gaza. In this context, and in tribute to the martyrdom of the great fighter, leader of the Resistance Axis, and proud Secretary-General of Hezbollah, the martyr HASSAN NASRALLAH, as well as the brave commander and senior advisor of the IRGC in Lebanon, Major General Seyyed Abbas Nilforoushan, the IRGC Aerospace Force has launched dozens of ballistic missiles against key military and security targets in the heart of the occupied territories.””
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
To repeat myself, attacking them because of a limited attack from nearly a year ago isn’t responding to an imminent threat.
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
Yeah man keep ignoring the fact that Iran continually arms the Houthis who haven’t stopped shooting at Israel. Hezbollah is neutered and unable to attack because its supply lines through Syria are gone. Again, read some more and try to have a less biased dug in perspective.
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
I haven’t ignored it. I’ve been explicit in saying that it doesn’t meet the standard of attribution.
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
“Reasonableness: When a state is considering responding to an internationally wrongful act, the standard of attribution is based on "reasonableness." This means the state should act as a reasonable state would in similar circumstances when attributing responsibility. Factors considered for attribution: The determination of attribution under the "reasonableness" standard depends on factors such as the reliability, quantity, directness, nature (e.g., technical or human intelligence), and specificity of available information. The scope, scale, and impact of the incident are also important considerations.”
Again it’s not reasonable to arm a 3rd party to do your dirty work. Nor is it reasonable to train and send material and informational support to terrorist groups for the purpose of attacking civilians. Nor is it reasonable to declare a jihad and an “axis of resistance” against a single state entity with the expressed goal of destroying said entity. Again, read more. There is no grey area here, Iran sends weapons to international terrorist groups it’s not hard to prove.
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
What are you citing from?
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
The law which you are using. You’re describing the ambiguity of cyber proxies not actual proxies.
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
Brother, cite the source.
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
Brother use Google, this isn’t college. You’re pretending to know, I told you to read more, now get to it son.
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
I’m guessing you used ChatGPT, am I right? That’s the only reason I can imagine you are so hesitant to explain where you got your information.
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
You’re just making stuff up now you want to accuse me of using ChatGPT you guys are hilarious. Here’s a whole blog post about how total control doesn’t matter in armed conflict
https://www.justsecurity.org/56272/legal-limits-military-assistance-proxy-forces-pathways-state-official-responsibility/
The rule contained in Article 41 may serve as a residual category applicable to those instances in which a partner or proxy force engages in gross or systematic violations of peremptory norms of international law. Although a limitation of Article 41 is that it addresses only conduct after the fact, it includes situations of repeat violations of international law and does not require a showing of intent on the part of the assisting State. As the Chatham House report explains, “it could be argued that Article 41 more generally implies that states are under a stricter duty not to render aid or assistance where peremptory norms are invoked, and that the importance of peremptory norms warrants that states should be more careful about the ways in which they cooperate with one another.”
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
So can you cite where you got your previously quoted paragraphs? Yes or no?
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
Can you try to have an intellectually honest argument ever? You’re wrong just admit it and learn from it
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
Yes or no?
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
Erroneous bro, go read a book. Stop pretending you understand what you’re talking about. You have multiple sources now.
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
Yes or no?
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
I’m gonna go outside, keep supporting terrorists blindly
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
I’ll take that as a no.
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
Google is your friend, read the second source too and Google and read some more. Don’t be a sore loser, it won’t get you anywhere.
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
Sorry, is someone who made up a quote talking to me?
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
You also cited the standard initially without understanding it, wasn’t it the basis of your whole argument? How about you cite your sources, since you’ve contributed nothing but your opinion and speculation.
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
Just to help you out peremptory means the norms of international law. Shooting rockets and mortars into Israel isn’t in accordance with international norms, nor is suicide bombing, stabbing, ramming or invading to murder civilians, nor is kidnapping and holding hostages. Iran is guilty due to their support of their proxies in these actions. It’s not hard to understand, as I’ve said from the beginning.
KronusTempus@reddit
I think Irans lackluster retaliation for the killing of a major political figure by a country they’re not at war with is evidence of their desire to avoid any armed confrontation.
I think you can make a strong case that Iran has shown an unimaginable level of restraint in the face of Israeli provocations. How would the US react if a senator was assassinated by a foreign country?
CharlesDexterWard6@reddit
Huh? How is the killing of the head of a Terror organization that was actively at war with Israel on in any way, shape or form comparable to the killing of a US-Senator? How is „responding“ with a rocket attack evidence of their desire to avoid any armed confrontation? This WAS an armed confrontation.
CharmCityKid09@reddit
That's this sub in a nutshell.
CharlesDexterWard6@reddit
Maybe there is some way to make a strong case here (I highly doubt it) but yours is very weak, to say the least.
Effective_Jury4363@reddit
Or alternatively- showing that prefer engaging in a proxy war, rather than a direct one.
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
The largest salvo of ballistic missiles in history was a restrained response for assassinating someone that’s not an Iranian government official? Cmon
More_Net4011@reddit
It wasn't for the killing of Nasrallah it was for the killing of Haniyeh who was inside Tehran.
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
And Nasrallah
More_Net4011@reddit
Sure dude whatever you say
GR1ZZLYBEARZ@reddit
Some IRGC guy said it not me, go whatever bro him.
“The IRGC issued its statement just minutes after the operation began, stating: “The great Islamic community, the noble and martyred Iranian nation, moments ago, after a period of restraint in the face of the violation of the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the assassination of the martyred fighter, Dr. Ismail Haniyeh, by the Zionist regime, and under the country's right to legitimate defense according to the United Nations Charter, has responded to the intensification of the regime's atrocities, supported by the United States in the massacre in Lebanon and Gaza. In this context, and in tribute to the martyrdom of the great fighter, leader of the Resistance Axis, and proud Secretary-General of Hezbollah, the martyr Hassan Nasrallah, as well as the brave commander and senior advisor of the IRGC in Lebanon, Major General Seyyed Abbas Nilforoushan, the IRGC Aerospace Force has launched dozens of ballistic missiles against key military and security targets in the heart of the occupied territories.””
PapaverOneirium@reddit (OP)
The October attack wasn’t just for Nasrallah. It was also for killing Haniyeh on Iranian soil.
major_jazza@reddit
How in the fk at this point do we not automatically assume that everything Israel does aboard is a war crime. They're shown that their m.o. is to do anything and everything they please without any regard for any law.
gerkletoss@reddit
What international law says that?
Acceptable-Peak-6375@reddit
Yeah, and if Israel claims that iran trained and funded hamas for the 10/7 invasion... would invasion count under self defense, Furthermore: iran, for decades, has promised Israel's destruction alongside secret nuclear weapons manufacturing during this time, also would be considered a serious threat.
There is a reason none of this will go to court, Iran and the other middle eastern countries do not want israel to argue its position, alongside other countries that have done nothing, but lay blame on israel, and do not wish to see it succeed.
TheJewPear@reddit
Even if it goes to court, there isn’t going to be any country that matters that’ll actually enforce it.
Acceptable-Peak-6375@reddit
Israel has wanted to for years, the opposing side actively prevents progress to move forward.
Fritja@reddit
This sub is full of trolls.
TheJewPear@reddit
It’s almost like international law has very little meaning and is used as a tool for lawfare by Russia and its buddies.
Acceptable-Peak-6375@reddit
When Israel hit Iran, the IRGC stopped sending munitions to Russia, in effect, cutting Russia off from its limited number of allies, leaving primarily North Korea, china, and india as a trade partner too.
Israel may be hated, but less iranian bombs / drones hitting ukraine is a good send imo.
TheJewPear@reddit
Of course, that’s possible, I think we will have to wait and see whether the end result is a good one. But so far it seems to me like Israel and the US attacks in Iran have done a lot of good for the world.
Acceptable-Peak-6375@reddit
America was going back to post ww1/ ww2 isolationism.
Netanyahu told trump/maga/american ago, that they have spent decades being a lead influence in M.E. affairs, and that trump can choose to let israel take the lead, or actually impress force into this war, in order for her[the U.s.] to continue its supremacy over the region.
Isolationist trump, immediately dive bombed into iran.
Duke_Abnab@reddit
Iran attacked Israel 18 months ago via its proxies. Left alone it will do so again.
Wompish66@reddit
Israel has been assassinating Iranians for decades.
It's also amusing how the West tries to hide our hypocrisy with language. Iran supports proxies so is a valid target but the UK aiding Ukraine wouldn't be.
Nileghi@reddit
As it should have, as thoses iranians were building a nuke.
Imagine being so negatively polarized against Israel that you want Iran to build a nuke they can threaten you with because at least Israel didn't get another military win under its belt.
Longjumping-Jello459@reddit
I imagine there's a difference between the action being legally justified and morally justified when it comes to killing individuals involved in nuclear development.
Duke_Abnab@reddit
The use of proxies is why Iran isn't innocent in this conflict, and why Israel can claim self-defense.
If Russia could attack the UK for supporting Ukraine, it would. What's your point?
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
From a legal standpoint, nothing you described justifies violating use of force by Israel.
Duke_Abnab@reddit
So, by your reckoning, using a proxy removes all responsibility and accountability for the event you paid for and even ordered. It'll take something to find a less nuanced stance than this.
By your reckoning, any country would be foolish to fight a war any other way than through proxies lol
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
No, that’s not my position. My position is that funding proxies doesn’t amount to an armed attack unless effective control can be established.
Duke_Abnab@reddit
What if control isn't the objective, but it's to destabilize the region and promote a wider war?
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
When I say effective control, I’m referring to their influence within the group. A state army is under the effective control of its state for instance.
Duke_Abnab@reddit
Got it, thanks for clarifying..
You're splitting heirs: if Iran funds and directs it's proxies then it's tied to the outcome. Just like if you put a bounty on someone's head, you're responsible for the murder.
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
That’s not how it works under international law. See the case involve the aforementioned Contras.
Elim-the-tailor@reddit
Sure but from a practical perspective there's not really any way to enforce international law in a case like this -- it's not like this is Ghaddafi or Milosevic.
No one's taking Israel, or a NATO member, or Russia, or China to an international law court and getting some sort of judgement/punishment implemented on them.
TheJewPear@reddit
Did Iran seek approval of the UNSC before having its proxies attack Israel on October 7th and regularly since then?
Did they seek approval of the UNSC when arming and assisting the Houthis in overthrowing the legitimate government of Yemen?
photochadsupremacist@reddit
Iran played no direct role in October 7th.
October 7th was an act of armed resistance against belligerent occupation, so it was a legal attack. That doesn't mean every single thing that happened on the day was legal, but the attack itself was.
It was in retaliation to an illegal attack on an Iranian consulate.
So you're mad they armed an "illegitimate" group in Yemen, and the "legitimate" government of Syria?
TheJewPear@reddit
Did Hamas and PIJ seek UNSC approval?
photochadsupremacist@reddit
They don't have to. They have the right to armed resistance against illegal belligerent occupation.
TheJewPear@reddit
Isn’t it convenient that Israel’s enemies aren’t obligated to seek anyone’s approval for attacking Israel, and that they can also intentionally attack civilians, yet Israel needs Russia’s approval for retaliating?
photochadsupremacist@reddit
No one said they are allowed to attack civilians, but Israel is occupying internationally recognised Palestinian territory.
And you're fucking mad resistance groups don't have to get authorisation to attack their occupiers. Have they tried not occupying Palestine?
TheJewPear@reddit
Israel isn’t occupying Yemen, nor did it occupy Lebanon prior to Hezbollah’s attacks following Oct 7.
photochadsupremacist@reddit
I agree about Yemen, but states are obliged to do everything they can to prevent genocides. It can be easily argued Yemen is upholding its obligations.
As for Hezbollah, Israel annexed Lebanese territory (Shebaa farms) which is obviously illegal.
TheJewPear@reddit
Attacking in retaliation to something done 50 years ago isn’t self defense. UNSC permission was required.
photochadsupremacist@reddit
It's still occupied, they don't need permission.
Didn't Israel attack, invade, and occupy Syrian territory unprovoked as well? Curious.
TheJewPear@reddit
Did Iran ask for UNSC approval before attacking the US today? Just curious.
photochadsupremacist@reddit
They don't have to because it was a retaliatory strike that was directly proportional to the unprovoked attack by the US. Some might even say they went easy to prevent a larger war from breaking out.
TheJewPear@reddit
According to the commenter above, they did have to, since it didn’t qualify as self defense.
photochadsupremacist@reddit
Not sure who you're talking about, you can at least link the comment in question.
TheJewPear@reddit
The main comment above that were both responding to.
photochadsupremacist@reddit
That's not what the commenter said. They weren't talking about the US attack on Iran.
It's undeniable that the US conducted an unprovoked armed attack on Iran, so they have the right to self defense (article 51). That's it.
TheJewPear@reddit
That’s not how self defense works. Read the clause you’re referring to, retaliation isn’t self defense.
photochadsupremacist@reddit
Article 51 does give countries the permission to retaliate in self-defense until the matter is resolved by the UNSC.
TheJewPear@reddit
No, it does not. The conditions of lawful self defense include the “necessity” requirement, where the use of force must be necessary to repel the attack. This means that use of force after an attack has happened doesn’t count as self defense.
photochadsupremacist@reddit
The "necessary" part isn't just talking about repelling an attack. Otherwise, any UNSC veto state can attack any country then veto every time a country invokes self-defense which would obviously be ridiculous.
Self-defense includes retaliatory attacks, but they must be proportional to the initial attack.
TheJewPear@reddit
Nope. Self defense speaks about prevention, not retaliation.
photochadsupremacist@reddit
https://www.shs-conferences.org/articles/shsconf/pdf/2018/01/shsconf_shw2018_01008.pdf
The author takes this for granted because it's obviously true.
TheJewPear@reddit
Ok, so the invasion to Iran is a response to the Iranian missile and drone attacks. Problem solved.
photochadsupremacist@reddit
No it isn't. Both of Iran's attacks were in self-defense against Israeli attacks.
TheJewPear@reddit
Isn’t it convenient that based on your interpretation of the law, it seems everyone is entitled to attack Israel, and Israel isn’t entitled to fight back?
photochadsupremacist@reddit
I'll give it to zionists, they are very consistent.
Every single debate invariably ends in "might makes right".
Though Israeli military buildings and bases are being pummeled by Iran which is nice to see. Israel has a very strict military censor but videos are being posted regardless.
TheJewPear@reddit
Are they as convincing as that photo of “downed F35” that looks the size of a cruise ship, or the photo of “captured IAF pilot” that’s actually a Chilean pilot? Or maybe the announcement that “Iran has air superiority over Israel” while there was not a single Iranian plane to be seen?
photochadsupremacist@reddit
None of this was from the Iranian government.
They're bombing places at will, Israel's air defences can't intercept their best missiles. They don't need planes.
TheJewPear@reddit
If they can bomb whatever they want, why are they choosing residential buildings?
photochadsupremacist@reddit
They are also bombing military bases, intelligence buildings, and military research buildings. These are most of their targets. You only see the ones in the middle of cities because there are a lot of civilians around. The military censor is banning all reports of bombings of military bases.
TheJewPear@reddit
Ok, it’s good to know they’re bombing residentials because they want to, and not that lie about missing the target.
photochadsupremacist@reddit
Are we going to pretend Israel doesn't do the same in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran?
TheJewPear@reddit
So if the government does bad things it’s ok to kill their civilians?
Interesting how similar your logic is to the Israeli extreme right.
photochadsupremacist@reddit
I'm not saying it's ok or good to bomb civilians, I'm saying it's hypocritical to complain about this after everything that happened in the last 20 months.
TheJewPear@reddit
Oh, ok, so I guess it’s hypocritical for Palestinians to complain after all those people Hamas and PIJ murdered, raped and bombed. Right?
photochadsupremacist@reddit
The problem with that logic is that they tried to peacefully demonstrate before and have been met with overwhelming violence against civilians.
Israel's occupation is multiple orders of magnitude worse than anything Palestinians have ever done to Israelis.
Even during the Nakba, Zionist terrorists massacred civilian villages and raped teenagers, according to the terrorists themselves.
Both Hamas and PIJ were created in response to Israeli aggression and occupation.
TheJewPear@reddit
Ok, so whoever has the worst leadership, their civilians are fair game?
I’m just trying to understand your logic here on why you think it’s wrong to complain about Iran targeting civilians.
photochadsupremacist@reddit
You keep putting words into my mouth.
I never said it's "wrong" to complain. I said it's hypocritical. If you haven't been speaking up against the 10s of thousands of civilians being killed in Gaza, and the hundreds of civilians being killed in Lebanon and Iran, you have no right to complain about a few dozen civilians being killed in Israel. If you want to claim you don't support any of them, I'll join you in doing so, but we both know you've been justifying the genocide for months at least, probably more.
photochadsupremacist@reddit
The Hezbollah and Houthis part is my interpretation, the rest is well-established fact.
Both of Iran's attacks were in direct response to Israeli aggression.
Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
Israel can't argue self-defense when there weren't any imminent threats from Iran.
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
Iran didn’t direct October 7th
TheJewPear@reddit
Iran financed and armed the PIJ, Hezbollah, Houthis and Iraqi militias attacking Israel on and after October 7th. They were the weapon, Iran was the guiding hand.
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
In US v. Nicaragua, the ICJ determine, while describing the Contras:
Despite this, it was found:
Iran does not have more effective control of the operations of Hezbollah, Hamas, or the Houthis than the US did for the Contras, and as such, state attribution can’t reasonably be held.
CharmCityKid09@reddit
Of course, not Israel did its best to dismantle all three groups so that Iran couldn't fund them as proxies. Iran's lack of control is due to the response the groups received and the decimation of them that followed.
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
They were never under the effective control of Iran.
CharmCityKid09@reddit
That just doesn't follow any consistent logic. None of these groups have the means or ability to fund and sustain themselves without outside assistance. Iran has been shown to have direct ties with all of them. The IRGC has been proven to fund destabilizing groups in the region to include these groups. If you think that didn't come with any direction you're intentionally not willing to understand the logic train or evidence.
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
Refer to the cited case law above. Funding and direct ties are not enough to establish effective control.
CharmCityKid09@reddit
Which was only relevant to the US and contras.
It is not a default get out of jail free card for other nations' states. You seem to really want to abuse the spirit of international law here, where no nation would tolerate such actions by another power against them.
In fact Iran's actions have been a casus belli for years, and while you now will say it's not legal.
No one here buys that argument when Iran has continuously violated Article 2 of the same UN charter, which then makes Israel's case for self-defense. Iran has stated openly the threat of force against the state of Israel.
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
You can read the Judgement yourself. Paras. 113-116 discuss the necessity to establish effective control to attribute the actions of an armed group to a state. It’s made abundantly clear that unless a group represents an organ of a state, state attribution cannot be established.
CharmCityKid09@reddit
Notice you didn't address what I actually said.
You can keep citing a specific case law in Iran's defense all you want. It's not a get out of jail free card. No one in the international community buys that argument.
Iran is in direct violation of Article 2 of the UN charter. Thus, any attempt to deflect their culpability directly or through proxies is moot, and Israel can claim self-defense.
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
You claimed it was only relevant to the US and Contras. I’m saying it’s not, and the judgment makes it clear that’s simply the standard of the law. Regarding the position of the international community, read the article you’re arguing under. You’re in the minority as far as the law is concerned.
CharmCityKid09@reddit
That's twice now that you've ignored the point about Iran being in violation of Article 2. Which would supercede this desperate need you have to find some way to defend Iran's use of proxies to wage asymmetric warfare.
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
So your position is that Iran committed an armed attack prior to Israel’s strikes?
And for reference, I’m not sure why you’re pretending like you didn’t directly comment about my claims which were discussing the proxies.
CharmCityKid09@reddit
Article 2 of the UN charter
section 2.
"All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter."
Iran did not do that with its agreement on enrichment of Uranium and working with the IAEA.
Section 3
"All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered."
Iran funds proxies to engage in asymmetric warfare against Israel for the sole reason its a Jewish state. Which would violate international peacekeeping clause and endanger regional security. Especially since those actors have directly engaged in activities to subvert other nations.
Section 4
"Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
Iran has openly declared itself an enemy of other nations and has vowed to use arms against them. It has openly called for and threatened force to completely destroy the state of Israel. Even when it had no need to do so.
By being in direct violation of 3 different sections of Article 2. Iran loses the ability to hide behind that one case you keep citing over and over again, becuase at this point you're intentionally distorting facts or blatantly ignoring things that do not fit your narrative.
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
Article 51:
So can you clarify for me whether or not you believe Iran has committed an armed attack against Israel?
I’ll also note, those supposed violations don’t actually negate any aspect of the attribution for the proxies.
CharmCityKid09@reddit
Now you're just being intentionally obtuse. You're not here in good faith, and your constant pivoting is boring. Clearly, you simp for state sponsors of terror.
Israel, being subject to consistent armed attack, has a right to self-defense. That it can directly identify the responsible party that being Iran and respond how they see fit is something you don't get to dictate to them.
Yea, you're just a very sad individual. You can not defend or adress the actual violations, and now you're trying to sit here and pretend there is zero context or evidence of them. Pathetic.
Phallindrome@reddit
Of course not, that's why Israel didn't need to assassinate Quds Force IRGC commander Zahedi in Damascus last April, he wasn't actually responsible for coordination between Iran and Hezbollah. And they certainly didn't need to assassinate Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran last July, because he wasn't really the head of Hamas, just a case of mistaken identity.
TheJewPear@reddit
Congrats, that’s exactly what Russian lawfare looks like.
FerdinandTheGiant@reddit
Do you know when US v. Nicaragua took place?
TheJewPear@reddit
I don’t really care, buddy. Enforce the law for everyone or don’t enforce it at all.
Laughing_Man_Returns@reddit
Israel financed and armed Hamas, too. should they attack themselves next?
actually, sounds like a good idea.
TheJewPear@reddit
Israel didn’t finance and arm Hamas. Let me guess, you get your news from RT?
Israel allowed Qatar to funnel donation money to Hamas, because it pretty much had to.
icatsouki@reddit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Hamas#Origins
Nileghi@reddit
yea the PLO in the 80s was a nightmare that blew up synagogues full of congregants around the planet in Europe, Asia, North America and South America
Look at this wiki page. Its not just a list, its a list of lists, subdivided by attacks on countries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Palestinian_terrorist_incidents_in_Europe
And you wonder why Israel sought an alternative to this bullshit?
TheJewPear@reddit
Ok, wonderful, so back in the 1980s Israel could attack itself without UNSC approval. How does that help your case?
Proper-Community-465@reddit
Israel allowed funding from Qatar to bypass the blockade and reach Hamas to fund public services. It's not comparable at all
OsgrobioPrubeta@reddit
So did Israel and the US.
TheJewPear@reddit
Good, glad we agree that nobody gives a shit about what Russia says you can and cannot do.
OsgrobioPrubeta@reddit
? A fuze just blew.
TheJewPear@reddit
Take your fuse back to mother Russia, maybe they can get it repaired.
OsgrobioPrubeta@reddit
Salam aleikum comrade.
TheJewPear@reddit
Don’t worry, the Iranian regime will collapse very soon, and then there’ll be an actual opportunity for salaam.
Laughing_Man_Returns@reddit
the problem is pretty much everyone established that attacking someone is self-defence after Gaza and Lebanon especially. "we just need to let them do this one thing and then they will have enough and stop". worked for Hitler, will work for Bibi.
MasterDefibrillator@reddit
It's interesting that there was a big huff and puff about an Iranian missiles damaging an Israeli hospital next to a military site, but it's only till reading this UN report, days later, that I find out Israel had already struck an Iranian hospital.
PhoenixKingMalekith@reddit
The big huff was about israel not being able to protect that hospital, and that it was supposedly the idf temporary headquarter, not that it was hit by Iran
reality_hijacker@reddit
As of today, they have damaged 7 hospital and killed dozens of red crescent workers.
AniTaneen@reddit
May have ? Here I’ll do you a solid.
Trump violated the US constitution.
Republican Senator Thomas Massie posted on the swastica-shaped single-letter app formerly known as twitter that,
And
Trump took this very well. lol. https://www.axios.com/2025/06/22/trump-massie-congress-2026
For the people not blessed with knowledge of how the land of the free to be incarcerated works; Congress needs to approve war, even military actions. Obama did a little oopsie when he may have technically violated the constitution by bombing Libya. I strongly recommend this radio episode to learn more: https://radiolab.org/podcast/60-words-20-years/transcript
Well, impeach Trump.
Nimr0d19@reddit
You're wrong.
Trump can bomb any country he pleases, as he has demonstrated. Laws and rules mean jack shit if no one enforces them.
SowingSalt@reddit
Doesn't the President get 60 days, and 30 days to withdraw without a AUMF from congress?
hamburgercide@reddit
Wait so does that mean Lebanon and Yemen and Syria broke international law when they attacked Israel unprovoked after 10/7? What about military trained proxy armies do they count for the country they’re located in or the country giving the orders?
reality_hijacker@reddit
You talking about funding terrorists? How about Netanyahu's government itself funded Hamas so that they can have an excuse to keep Gaza an open air prison?
Lopsided-Garlic-5202@reddit
This "Netanyahu funded Hamas" crap is so tiresome. Do you have a clue how many countries meddles by funding different groups for different political, geopolitical, economic, or any other gain? Likely in the hundreds.
Do you know how many backfired? Tens.
Hamas wasn't funded as an excuse to keep Gaza an "open air prison" which it never were. Hamas was funded to be a counter to the then-ruling regime that was getting out of hand and a bit too extremist as they usually become.
Then hamas itself became extremist and created a militant wing, and stopped being just a political movement.
reality_hijacker@reddit
Did Netanyahu stopped funding hamas once it was clear that it was extreme?
I suppose human rights organizations are out to get you?
https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/06/14/gaza-israels-open-air-prison-15
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/israel-opt-israel-must-lift-illegal-and-inhumane-blockade-on-gaza-as-power-plant-runs-out-of-fuel/
You know, if you deny people basic human rights for decades, even the feeblest of people would turn extreme.
AntoniousTheBro@reddit
Syria? Syria wasn't involved since a war decades ago. No clue why you would say Syria.
The others yes houthi's and hezbollah did brake international law. It's why they are considered terrorists it's also why so few nations helped them. This isn't the gotcha you think it is.
hamburgercide@reddit
Honestly I guess we can remove them because it wasn’t as egregious as Lebanon and Yemen but there were a few rockets fired from Golan after 10/7. Nothing Assad took credit for tho.
TheJewPear@reddit
Did they have anything to say when Iran violated international law about 350 times in the last 20 years? Like, I don’t know, Iran’s participation in the Syrian civil war? How about their support of a terror organization that occupies southern Lebanon and attacked Israeli civilians repeatedly after October 7th? Or maybe arming and training Hamas and PIJ that fired tens of thousands of rockets on civilians? How about when the Houthis fired missiles on Israel civilians? Or maybe when Iran itself rained hundreds of missiles and drones on Israel in April 2024?
No?
So this UN mission should sit down and shut up.
eliedacc@reddit
? Iran has been under sanctions for years because of those. Has Israel faced any consequences at all for any of the crap it has pulled during it's entire existence?
TheJewPear@reddit
Yeah, it did. Israel has been bombarded almost non-stop for the past 20 months with the world doing nothing to stop it. So they had to take things into their hands - and good thing they did, now the criminal regime of Assad is gone, Hezbollah weakened, and the Iranian regime is nearing its demise.
reality_hijacker@reddit
How about the billions of dollars of annual aid Israel received from the US? How about millions of dollars worth of weapons from other western European countries?
Also, US has built you your precious multi layered air defense systems so that those hamas and hezbollah rockets did next to no damage.
Lopsided-Garlic-5202@reddit
"How about billions of dolalrs of annual aid"
Heck we can say the same about Gaza, it received hundreds of millions if not more in aid directly from Israel. Did nothing, didn't it?
Also, the US built jack shit. And building an air defense system is not a solution, it's simply treating the symptoms.
Seriously, such a stupid take.
reality_hijacker@reddit
The amount Israel receive in an year from US alone, Gaza hasn't received in two decades.
Also, Israel won't let Gaza develop an economy, they bombed the only airport, imposed full blockade since 2007, and controls its water and electricity, effectively turning it into an open air prison. Any aid Gaza received had to be spent into short term things since no economic activity was possible.
valentc@reddit
Ooh, poor baby. Are you experiencing the consequences of your country's actions? Oh poor zionists, not being able to commit genocide and ethnic cleansing in peace. /s
Now you started another war and are getting hurt? Oh, well maybe Israel should stop starting wars and you should get rid of Netanyahu.
But this is what happens when you elect a genocidal maniac for 20+ years after he called for the murder of you're previous one.
TheJewPear@reddit
Wait, so it’s fine to bomb civilians when their government does bad things?
finalattack123@reddit
Are you talking about the 50k civilians Israel killed?
eliedacc@reddit
Which of these was by the 'mission' that you are critiquing in your first comment?
ThatHeckinFox@reddit
God, just shut the fuck up and keep passing out food instead of embarassing yourself, that's all the UN is good for. Ridiculous. Why the fuck do they keep doing this?
Own_Thing_4364@reddit
"UN says Israel existing may violate 'international law.' The UN also concluded that arming proxy militants and indiscriminately firing rockets and missiles where 'Zionists' live was completely in line with 'humanitarian law'"
L_o_n_g_b_o_i@reddit
Why are you shitting on arming proxies? Everyone knows Netanyahu funds Hamas to prevent the formation of a Palestinian state. Please, stop your criticism of Israel
Own_Thing_4364@reddit
Source?
Unable_Duck9588@reddit
Like you would accept any source.
Go back to your barracks pvt. nobody buys what you’re selling anymore. Try worldnews.
Own_Thing_4364@reddit
So the only source you have is "my feelz." No wonder no one takes you goofs seriously.
Unable_Duck9588@reddit
No, we’ve provided many sourced and had conversations that went no where with you and peoe like you.
Take your shit to worldnews.
anime_titties-ModTeam@reddit
Your submission/comment has been removed as it violates:
Make sure to check our sidebar from time to time as it provides detailed submission guidelines and may change.
Please feel free to send us a modmail if you have any questions or concerns.
SowingSalt@reddit
All your sources actually say Israel let Qatari money through the blockade, or they funded the Muslim Brotherhood outreach organization before they decided Israel was the lesser Satan.
Own_Thing_4364@reddit
HAHAHAHAAAA!!! You haven't even provided one. This has to be the saddest and most patehtic deflection I've seen yet.
Unable_Duck9588@reddit
🤫🤫
Own_Thing_4364@reddit
Just as I thought.
L_o_n_g_b_o_i@reddit
The Times of Israel, Haaretz, NYT, numerous other sources. Why would you try and wade into this debate without knowing these simple facts? It would be like trying your hand at algebra without knowing 2+2=4
Own_Thing_4364@reddit
Listing media isn't a source. All you have to do is link to one.
L_o_n_g_b_o_i@reddit
Did IDF reject camp not teach you how to undertake a Google search? Is it really all completely scripted? I guess that tracks since the slightest hint of independent thinking is a threat to Zionism
Own_Thing_4364@reddit
So that's a "no" then. You have nothing beyond making shit up. With useless friends like you, the Palestinians don't need enemies XD
anime_titties-ModTeam@reddit
Your submission/comment has been removed as it violates:
Make sure to check our sidebar from time to time as it provides detailed submission guidelines and may change.
Please feel free to send us a modmail if you have any questions or concerns.
aDrThatsNotBaizhu@reddit
Wrong flair btw
Imagine if other countries used the same excuse to indiscriminately bomb countries they don't like. Your honor i striked first and bombed the US and injured hundreds because US is a threat to our existence!!
Own_Thing_4364@reddit
Imagine using "whatabouttery" to defend Iran and its actions for the last 40 years just to fan your own hatred.
valentc@reddit
That's not whataboutism, that's a hypothetical.
Israel is the one who striked first, so what's the excuse? The IAEA said they're violating the NPT, so it's ok to attack them? Well, Israel isn't even part of the NPT and has secret nukes while not allowing IAEA inspections, so surely it's not that right?
That would be hypocritical.
Own_Thing_4364@reddit
What was it like being born just last year?
NoHetro@reddit
hmm i wonder what's the majority religion of countries voting in the UN? could that have any influence on their voting?
40_Thousand_Hammers@reddit
If this is the case then I want UN to Nuke the US and zeurope for financing proxies militias, death squads and coups in Latam and Asian!
Because it's Latam and Asia right to defend itself.
Cap4404@reddit
Always the victim lmfao. Always.
Own_Thing_4364@reddit
Always the simps for Ilamic theocracies. Always.
mitchconnerrc@reddit
Bro, you literally support an ethnoreligious supremacist state. You have zero ground to stand on when talking about other countries. Every act of violence and terrorism the "murderous Islamic theocracies" have done, Israel has done tenfold. Yet Zionists only have smoke for Arabs and Muslims.
Own_Thing_4364@reddit
Says the simp for Iran, the literal definition of it.
Cap4404@reddit
Naw. I'm an equal hater of all theocracies. It's too bad that you overlook the atrocities of one because of the atrocities of another. But, hey, keep up the genocide and ethnic cleansing. As long as your god says it's ok, I guess we should all accept it.
test_test_1_2_3@reddit
The UN funded a support agency that was chock full of Hamas, nobody gives a shit what the UN declares with regards to Israel or Gaza, it’s just white noise at this point.
What is this international law Reddit and the UN keep banging on about? International law only has teeth if someone is going to enforce it, having words written on paper means absolutely nothing on its own.
Unable_Duck9588@reddit
Its like you are all reading from a script.
So predictable.
test_test_1_2_3@reddit
Same can be said of the many Hamas/Iran supporters this sub seems to attract.
Unable_Duck9588@reddit
I mean sure, deluding yourself into thinking everyone who opposes Israel and the US’ blatant wars of agression and ethnic cleansing are just terrorist sympathisers may make you feel better about defending all the murdered innocent people by said states..
Doesn’t mean you’re not propogating lies and bullshit talking points.
Back to worldnews.
test_test_1_2_3@reddit
lol I’m deluded but you’re ignoring 40+ years of rhetoric from Iran screeching death to Israel, USA and the west.
I don’t support many of America’s wars, eliminating Iran’s nuclear programme and getting rid of the current regime seems eminently sensible given their clearly stated goals.
Nah I’m not going to leave just because another Redditor tells me thanks, maybe try reporting me and getting me banned instead 🙂
Unable_Duck9588@reddit
Iran is a dangerous state with legitimate threats to the entire middle east, one that has been sanctioned, under pressure and rightfully resisted at every turn… and yet Israel is somehow much much worse and seemingly without anyone willing to stop their murderous rampage for decades.
Israelis have been chanting death to arabs for DECADES, and have actively enforced ethnic cleansing and massacres while enforcing apartheid. You are defending this murder and that’s all that matters when it comes to you.
In a few years, you will have always been against all this.
test_test_1_2_3@reddit
What rubbish, 20% of Israel’s population is Arab. Not many Jews left in surrounding nations, wonder why…
Only one of the two nations funds multiple proxies with the explicit intent of attacking the other. Yes Israel is pretty justified in kneecapping a hostile nation that is explicitly intent on wiping it out.
Iran is a terrorist state and seems like their population doesn’t want them either.
Unable_Duck9588@reddit
Not many Jews left because Israel lured them in to bolster their population.
The 20% token arab israeli population that can’t even find shelters when the siren goes off or post any criticism of the government isn’t the card you think it is.
Go away troll, nobody likes you.
test_test_1_2_3@reddit
And you accused me of spreading lies, truly hilarious. Arabs in Israel don’t live as second class citizens, that’s pure nonsense.
Jews have left the surrounding Muslim nations because they were treated poorly, yet there is a significant Muslim population in Israel.
Can’t argue with reality but I’m sure you’ll try and call me all sorts of names in the process. 🤣
Unable_Duck9588@reddit
Shh 🤫🤫🤫
cheeruphumanity@reddit
Don’t waste too much time with professional trolls.
Unable_Duck9588@reddit
You are right, its honestly pointless, but every now and then I feel like there needs to be pushback, or this sub just turns into worldnews vol2 with their brigading
cheeruphumanity@reddit
Two swift sentences max or a quote from a news article is good enough and preserves your time.
ShadeOfUnderstanding@reddit
BUT DO YOU SUPPORT HUMMUS!
Zionists are pitting thr while world in war, enemies of humanity is what they are
1THRILLHOUSE@reddit
Israel doesn’t care. America will back Israel 100% even if they kill American soldiers (as they have done in the past).
This is basically a speeding ticket for the rich, it’s not a deterrent to them only the 99% of everyone else.
ReadLocke2ndTreatise@reddit
Any UN body other than the 5 member security council, whose sole job is to prevent a nuclear escalation between the permanent members, has no weight. This statement is not more and no less valid than that of a high school classroom government issuing an edict.
empleadoEstatalBot@reddit
Maintainer | Source Code | Stats
AutoModerator@reddit
The link you have provided contains keywords for topics associated with an active conflict, and has automatically been flaired accordingly. If the flair was not updated, the link submitter MUST do so. Due to submissions regarding active conflicts generating more contrasting discussion, comments will only be available to users who have set a subreddit user flair, and must strictly comply with subreddit rules. Posters who change the assigned post flair without permission will be temporarily banned. Commenters who violate Reddiquette and civility rules will be summarily banned.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.