• 0 Posts
  • 34 Comments
Joined 3 months ago
cake
Cake day: March 4th, 2025

help-circle





  • Pretty good analysis, but focuses too much on oil. It will be a mix of Israeli air strikes and special operations in one direction and long range missiles, drones, and proxy forces in the other.

    Israel‘s ability to defend against Iranian drones and missiles was very good last time around. Jordan shoots down anything Iranian in their airspace they can, supporting Israel‘s defense in effect.

    Saudi Arabia, Turkey

    And most other countries in the region are very happy Israel fights Iran‘s ability to build nuclear weapons. That way they can keep their hand clean.

    If Iran gets nukes, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, and others would want nukes very urgently as well.

    The Saudis especially are glad Israel degraded Iran‘s proxy forces in the region. Even the new Syrian government owes its success in part to Israel clapping Hezbollah hard.

    The only ones mad at Israel in this case are the ones who hate Israel‘s existence and everything they do out of principle.





  • They don’t need to publish proof according to international law and it’s uncommon for any country to provide that. Operational security usually precludes that anyway. Proof and such come into play in a trial or Knesset parliamentary inquiry. Both of which have brought clarity in the past on Israeli action.

    Proportionality assessment is done by IDF officers and lawyers. They want their asses covered, because war crimes are also crimes under Israeli law and they want to continue traveling abroad. Proportionality is always judged by if the action is conducive to reach the military objective, while at the same time minimizing civilian casualties and damages. Zero civilian casualties is not required according to international humanitarian law.

    Anything Israel does is immediately labeled a war crime by some parties, regardless of what’s actually going on.

    It’d be the same war crime if they blew up a stadium full of people to kill one man.

    That would only be proportional under special circumstances, like if that man was extremely important, time was critical, and there was no other feasible way to target and get him. If that one man is a combatant and legitimate military target, he is also committing a war crime by hiding among civilians using them as human shields.

    So in the case of man in a stadium it would have to be literally Hitler about to launch another world war to justify blowing up the whole building. You can only get him there, because he‘s in the bunker connected to the stadium at all other times. In that case the stadium would also be filled with high ranking officers and party officials, but you said only one man. If you have a precision guided missile able to blow up only the VIP lodge, that would change the proportionality assessment of course. Proportionality depends on the objective.

    Israel‘s attacks on the apartment buildings only took out specific apartments, not destroy the whole building. This can be seen on footage from Iranian tv.

    So no, it’s not the same war crime, if it’s even a war crime.





  • Page 898

    Outside the blockade area and on the high seas,34 belligerents relied on the practice of "visit and search"3s to stop vessels suspected of carrying “con-traband” to the enemy.36 A belligerent warship sailing on the high seas had the right to visit and search all merchant vessels. Merchants found carrying enemy contraband were captured and escorted to the belligerent’s nearest home port. The belligerent nation’s prize court then determined the fate of the captured ship and cargo.37 In cases where merchants resisted either capture or visit and search, the blockading force was entitled to pursue and, if neces-sary, damage or destroy the vessel to force the ship to submit.

    Page 901

    belligerents today continue to enforce blockades from long distance or through blockade zones. They do so because of three twentieth-century developments in maritime warfare: first, the growing importance to belligerents of conducting economic warfare in conjunction with armed con-flict;s3 second, the introduction of a large array of new weapons to the maritime battlefield; and third, the proliferation of modern weapons to less powerful nations incapable of conducting traditional blockade. In combination, these three developments have forced states to replace traditional blockade form with long-distance blockade or blockade zones.





  • Page 898

    Outside the blockade area and on the high seas,34 belligerents relied on the practice of "visit and search"3s to stop vessels suspected of carrying “con-traband” to the enemy.36 A belligerent warship sailing on the high seas had the right to visit and search all merchant vessels. Merchants found carrying enemy contraband were captured and escorted to the belligerent’s nearest home port. The belligerent nation’s prize court then determined the fate of the captured ship and cargo.37 In cases where merchants resisted either capture or visit and search, the blockading force was entitled to pursue and, if neces-sary, damage or destroy the vessel to force the ship to submit.

    Page 901

    belligerents today continue to enforce blockades from long distance or through blockade zones. They do so because of three twentieth-century developments in maritime warfare: first, the growing importance to belligerents of conducting economic warfare in conjunction with armed con-flict;s3 second, the introduction of a large array of new weapons to the maritime battlefield; and third, the proliferation of modern weapons to less powerful nations incapable of conducting traditional blockade. In combination, these three developments have forced states to replace traditional blockade form with long-distance blockade or blockade zones.