Yes, Biden's policies in foreign affairs have been by and large pretty bad. Not to mention that if Israel did not receive so much aid from the US, Israel couldn't do what it is doing, with such intensity and impunity. Or at least, the conflict would not drag on so long. This also shows the Israeli government doesn't have a clue what to do with Hamas.

I think that Europe doesn't want to get dragged into a much larger conflict if things go sideways, regardless of the harm on international trade. But I'm not sure what they're thinking.

Interesting to note that the poorest and the people who have been through one of the worst wars in the 21st century are almost the only ones trying to do something to help Gaza to whatever extent it can. And Hezbollah too, but they are Palestinian so, they would do something.

Now we are all just waiting for the Israel-Lebanon situation to go completely blow up and then who knows what will happen?

If Israel is going to survive they should look at a map and reflect on who their neighbours and near neighbours are and how many there are.

They should.

But they also have the Samson Option, which they could use if they see themselves in an existential threat. Egypt, Jordan and others have done almost nothing.

Qatar has done good work.

The Biden administration has gotten itself into one giant mess, and seems to have no clue how to get out of it nor possesses the diplomatic credibility to ameliorate the damage.

However, even though on the surface the participation of NATO / EU / Trading nations seems sort of obvious, I'm not sure if it actually is.

The current attacks on shipping are a direct result of the Israel-Gaza war. Many in Europe and even India are critical of both Israel's and the US policy vis-á-vis Gaza and the Palestinians.

My sense is that their willingness to put sailors and vessels at risk to clean up the mess the United States and Israel created is probably quite low, especially considering US-EU relations of late.

There is even some indication that the Houthis are avoiding targeting anything that isn't related to the US or Israel, which means the EU may have more to lose by getting involved.

Furthermore, whereas Somalia was an isolated, failed state and Somali piracy was limited in both scale and weaponry, the Houthis and the interests they represent (Iran / wider Muslim world / perhaps even the Iran-Russia-China "alliance") carry much more gravity.

Just think of France's rapidly dwindling position in Africa right now. If they piss off the wrong people, they will lose their entire former empire (or what was left of it). It would be for the better if you ask me, but the French elite probably disagree.

In other words, the Houthi have friends in high places, and anyone who gets involved on the US or Israel's behalf can expect retaliation that targets their weak points.

Lastly, as we've discussed earlier, the weaponry the Houthi are using is extremely dangerous to a navy that isn't prepared for this (new) generation of warfare. Nations will think twice about putting themselves in the crosshairs.

Even navies that are capable of dealing with this type of threat will face the monetary cost of sending a taskforce that can defend itself 24/7.

With the Somalis it was completely different. A navy vessel operating alone would be perfectly fine. The piracy was carried out by armed men in small boats who intended to board merchant vessels. What the Houthi are doing today is completely different.

Consider perhaps also the risk of getting dragged into a war with the Houthi / Yemen or even Iran by operating under US-led task forces

FYI, proportionally is generally assessed at a fairly granular level. E.g., if a force is firing inaccurate and ineffective artillery from the playground of a school being used as a shelter, you can't hit the artillery with a 2,000lb bomb because the risk the artillery poses to your forces is not proportional to the risk to civilians in the school. If said artillery was instead lobbing shells into a crowded city, it might be proportional to use such means to destroy it , despite the shelter, as the artillery would represent a major threat. Likewise, even if the artillery isn't much of a threat, it might be proportional to capture it with infantry or destroy it with small loitering munitions, because then the threat to the civilians would be drastically reduced.

Proportionality is not assessed based on a comparison of total fatalities in a conflict, for obvious reasons. Whoever ends up with enemy forces on their land is generally going to have higher losses (not always true though, e.g. the current Ukraine War). The losing side is also, generally (though not always) going to have significantly higher losses. But proportionality would be an absolutely unenforceable concept if it tended to require that the winning side in a conflict cease operations as soon as it began winning.

So, Israel's responses are disproportionate on other grounds, and this would be what comparisons to WWII miss. I think the intuition in bringing that conflict up is that you can't very well ask that winning parties to a conflict cease operations as they start winning — fair enough, but that's actually not what is at issue in Israel's use of force in Gaza. The issue would be destroying all the infrastructure and relying on powerful munitions in an urban area against an enemy that seems to have been largely militarily defeated already. Where is the proportionality? IDF losses have been shockingly light so far, and by the IDFs own figures a solid proportion of all Hamas fighters have already been captured or killed.

You can't just look at numbers. For example, the Iraqi push to retake Mosul from ISIS had, to date, higher civilian deaths in absolute and relative terms. However, those forces were also operating without many of the advantages Israel has, so what counts as "proportional" is going to vary. The proportionality depends on the risk to your soldiers/civilians versus the risk to enemy non-combatants, which means Israel's decisive advantage of the ground factors into proportionality.

There is even some indication that the Houthis are avoiding targeting anything that isn't related to the US or Israel, which means the EU may have more to lose by getting involved

lol, what? They hit two Panamanian ships and would have hit a Nigerian flagged, Japanese owned ship has the munitions not been intercepted. "Extremely dangerous," might not be the right word. They've successfully hit commercial ships (e.g. the two Panamanian ones, a Norwegian flagged/owned oil/chemical tanker) and those carried on with minor damage.

How exactly is a Norwegian owned/operated tanker delivering to Italy related to Israel? How exactly is firing on ships transiting from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan related to Israel?

In other words, the Houthi have friends in high places, and anyone who gets involved on the US or Israel's behalf can expect retaliation that targets their weak points.

Russia didn't even veto the UN resolution.

Iran / wider Muslim world

Ah yes, because of close alignment between Iran and the Arabs, two sides essentially in their own regional cold war.

lol, what? — Count Timothy von Icarus

LOL

I doubt Israel would survive for long the Samson option.
Qatar has done good work, but I doubt it will change anything.

The proportionality depends on the risk to your soldiers/civilians versus the risk to enemy non-combatants, which means Israel's decisive advantage of the ground factors into proportionality. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You left out subsidiarity but otherwise agree with your post but I don't think it applies here in most actions taken by Israel. Breaches of humanitarian law (such as collective punishment) are disproportional by definition and therefore not allowed under any circumstances.

It's better than nothing, but it's still a pittance. Something's gotta give, or else this genocide may come to full fruition as mass starvation starts killing tens of thousands, maybe more.

So, there are reasons to suspect that in the short term nothing will change much, but it's also not sustainable for too much longer, Israel's economy is not doing well, and they may soon enter a full-blown war with Hezbollah. That would be quite disastrous for everybody, but Israel will be significantly harmed...

It's a powder keg.

Yes, they broke the rules the moment they withdrew food water and medicine from a captive population.

Also I think the term genocide might need to include the destruction of a country. The buildings, infrastructure, farmland etc.

However, even though on the surface the participation of NATO / EU / Trading nations seems sort of obvious, I'm not sure if it actually is. — Tzeentch

It's not happening. France is doing it's own thing, EU isn't at all contacted, other countries (like India) are not taken into account. And this just shows how for example "the Quad" isn't anything serious, as obviously for it's members safe navigation on the global sea routes is quite important!

In the end it might be that ships will just reflag to China! Chinese ships have no problem going through and even if China has two surface vessels in the region (and a naval base in Djibouti), there aren't doing anything. They don't have to.

The US doesn't actually use the card that this is an attack to international shipping and this itself is a threat to global trade and international relations. Just putting it down to "are you for free and safe shipping in the World?" would likely do it. Yet if and when the US simply is only defending it's own flagged ships, fine, but don't think that other countries will give a shit about your "Prosperity Guardian". France here is the canary in the coal mine. Hence you end up with NATO members doing their own stuff and basically not knowing just who does what.

Lack of leadership, I say. And this has become very typical to the US. It really doesn't care a shit about having allies or not. It just spurts out decisions and actions and then just looks puzzled if nobody goes along with it.

The fact that large scale humanitarian aid doesn’t seem to have got through is worrying. The international community has repeatedly offered aid, which has not been delivered as far as I know for many weeks.

I doubt Israel would survive for long the Samson option.
Qatar has done good work, but I doubt it will change anything. — Punshhh

Qatar is one of biggest helpers of Hamas... that's why the relationship. So you prefer that other countries assist Hamas too???

And Israel has a nuclear deterrence, likely a nuclear triad. Hence it doesn't have to worry about the Arab countries going back to their old habit of attacking Israel itself. They don't have nuclear weapons and conventionally too they might likely lose a conflict. And more likely they are afraid of the wrath that the US. Yet Israel sure plays the "Where a tiny nation that neighbors want to whipe away!"-card with dedication.

I'm not sure just how many Americans actually know that Israel has nuclear weapons.

From what I've read through Haaretz, Al Jazeera and several knowledgeable people on the situation, including UN agencies, some aid is getting through, but it's nowhere near the amount of aid that needs to get through to prevent mass starvation, so it's kind of a band-aid for sawed off limbs.

I don't know if things would change if many thousands start dying from lack of food and water. Likely Biden, Blinken and Netanyahu wouldn't care, but then at that stage, maybe other Arab countries might be forced to do something much more significant.

If that includes breaking diplomatic ties, or cutting off trade or even war, I cannot say. But proportionally, what is happening in Gaza is almost unprecedented in modern war, so many doctors, journalists and babies being killed on purpose is ghastly.

Rwanda was worse, Yemen maybe, a few others. But even in terms of Israel's quite abysmal record on human rights in war, it's the worst they've done by quite a bit.

Lack of leadership, I say. — ssu

I'll agree. The Biden administration looks like a set of children playing with fire, and where I had sort of expected some foreign policy veterans to show up to avoid utter disaster, nothing of the sort seems to be happening.

I don't know who should have won WWII, because I don't have the requisite information to answer the question. — AmadeusD

:roll:

Seems preliminary reaction by Israel is "look how terrible Hamas was on 7 October" as an argument that therefore Hamas must be eliminated with the unspoken addition "by any means necessary". Without that last point, there is after all, no argument.

For the lawyers on "direct and public incitement to commit genocide":

https://cld.irmct.org/notions/show/265/direct-and-public-incitement-to-commit-genocide#

Let's go back to: I'm sorry for you if you think this needs quantifying.

The Martens clause leads interpretation.

Until a more complete code of the laws of war is issued, the High Contracting Parties think it right to declare that in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, populations and belligerents remain under the protection and empire of the principles of international law, as they result from the usages established between civilized nations, from the laws of humanity and the requirements of the public conscience.


The Geneva Conventions exclude breaking its rules even if the other party does (unless specifically stated otherwise) right there in article 1 and 3 of the convention. So Israel has a right to (counter)attack but not a right to breach the conventions. The disproportionality is apparent in the means chosen, collective punishment and deliberate targetting of civilians, which are all prohibited under the various conventions. Put in other words, excessive violence when acting in alleged self-defence, even if we accept a case of self-defence, is still illegal under international law and therefore disproportional.

More on reciprocity in humanitarian law: https://international-review.icrc.org/sites/default/files/S0020860400022178a.pdf — Benkei

Thanks for the quote and the link, Holy Benkei. I can understand that proportionality is matter of interpretation.
The problem is still who is interpreting the application of the convention, though. Because, as long as you want to talk laws, it’s not just a self-entitled anonymous nobody over the internet that must interpret violations of the Geneva Convention, but rather an authoritative (to the extant the balance of power allows it) if not recognised tribunal, yes?
Besides it isn’t that easy to prove the intentionality of such violations like “collective punishment and deliberate targetting of civilians” and pin it down on specific political leaders, or is it? Maybe that’s because the problem of implementing justice in the international arena can not be disentangled that easily from power balance and conflict of interests?

However, the real problem here is that you need laws to tell you what is ethically abundantly clear to anyone with a conscience (that's how it ended up as law, because people with a conscience realised it had to be written down). — Benkei

Yes it’s a problem indeed, Holy Benkei. But still the same problem, if I do not have a conscience how can I grow one as you preach? You must certainly have the answer, yes? That’s why your immense wisdom is so precious to me. Teach me the holy way to fix the world horrors from your armchair. While you are at it, why do you think Geneva Conventions are too often violated as some say (https://onu.delegfrance.org/The-Geneva-Conventions-are-too-often-violated) and so hard to prosecute as others say (https://www.axios.com/2022/03/22/russia-putin-war-crimes-icc-ukraine)? Is it possible that there are enough people and, especially powerful people, which do not seem to comply to what is “ethically abundantly clear to anyone with a conscience” EVEN IF international laws is telling them to do so? And if they do not comply and yet their action is so terrifyingly impactful, how else can they grow a conscience? Do you think if all anonymous nobodies in this forum will keep calling them “morderous iditios” long enough, would this grow conscience in them and everywhere in the universe and this will finally help fix the world horrors, Holy Benkei? Is that your gospel which will free us from the Evil?

So this is my last reply to you as I don't want to engage with murderous idiots here or in real life. — Benkei

But then how can murderous idiots grow a conscience if you refuse to share your immense wisdom with them, Holy Benkei?

I'm not seeing the "any means necessary" part, in that document, not that they haven't said it, they have in many ways, maybe I'm looking at the wrong part.

But there is no argument here against intent, the intent is crystal clear. The genocide is not far away, especially if food and medicine do not come in in sufficient numbers, then we will have an exponential death and that would be actual genocide.

But, the fact they bothered to show up to court, means they can't completely disregard world opinion, otherwise they could've skipped this, as they have done before.

It's no guarantee that SA will win of course, but, it's some tiny bit of light.

Qatar is one of biggest helpers of Hamas... that's why the relationship. So you prefer that other countries assist Hamas too???

Only in that Qatar has conducted successful negotiations between the two sides.

Regarding Hamas, there is always now going to be an attack force like Hamas and there is always going to be a negotiation with such a force for a peace to be reached, there’s no other way.

Besides it isn’t that easy to prove the intentionality of such violations like “collective punishment and deliberate targetting of civilians” and pin it down on specific political leaders, or is it? — neomac

Fairly straightforward I would have thought. The facts of what has happened is evidence of intention. Words are evidence of intention.

Just listening to Tal Becker's defence. He's just talking about how nasty Hamas is. Nothing directly relevant to the case so far. He's just mischaracterised South Africa's argument by saying that SA is denying Israel's right to defend itself in any way at all. Now he's doing an ad hom against SA saying SA has links with Hamas, which is irrelevant. Not impressed so far. More emotional pleas than legal points.

It's not a document brought into the proceedings but reflects references in court cases of the UN and specific tribunals to get a better understanding how rulings were argued on this specific subject.

Regarding Hamas, there is always now going to be an attack force like Hamas and there is always going to be a negotiation with such a force for a peace to be reached, there’s no other way. — Punshhh

Exactly. It's a war that will continue until there's a two state solution.

It's no guarantee that SA will win of course, but, it's some tiny bit of light. — Manuel

That's extremely tiny light, yet I think the coverage simply can move attitudes and bring change in the long run.

Of course the most adamant defender of Israel is Germany. For apparent reasons:

Government spokesman Steffen Hebestreit said in a statement that Israel was "defending itself" after the "inhuman" attacks by Hamas of October 7.

"In light of German history and the crimes against humanity of the Shoah, the German government is particularly committed to the (UN) Genocide Convention," signed in 1948 in the wake of the Holocaust, Hebestreit said.

He said the Convention marked a "central instrument" under international law to prevent another Holocaust.

For this reason, he said, "we stand firmly against a political instrumentalisation" of the Convention.

Hebestreit acknowledged diverging views in the international community on Israel's military operation in Gaza.

"However the German government decisively and expressly rejects the accusation of genocide brought against Israel before the International Court of Justice," he said.

As far as I know, experts are saying this is the strongest case they've seen in terms of "intent of genocide", so, I suppose that counts for something.

I hope South Africa will win... But there's the whole political angle that makes this more difficult than usual.



True, historical issues make this a thorny issue for Germany.

However, there seems to be a divide between the people and the government here, as is the case in most "Western" countries, but how large this gap is between public opinion and the German government specifically, I can't say, haven't seen any polls on the issue.

But this could all be rendered significantly less important if Israel goes to full scale war with Hezbollah, which could happen. It's very tense.

The facts of what has happened is evidence of intention. Words are evidence of intention. — bert1

Right, why do we even have an ICC if we have bert1 to teach us what counts as evidence in the violation of the Geneva convention?

counts as evidence — neomac

It's pretty normal to use behaviour and words as evidence of intention, as we don't have mind-reading machines.

I don't know much about international law. Is there an equivalent concept to mens rea when it comes to crimes committed by states?