• mrdown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    Which article of the convention? Noting that the convention is specifically about “nuclear material used for peaceful purposes” which Israel and its allies, as we know, do not agree with in the case of Iran.

    If they don’t have valid proofs than they shouldn’t bomb or support bombing nuclear sites

    International law is clear that responding militarily to a military attack (such as Oct 7th) is, in principle, justified.

    International law is clear Israel has the obligation to end occupation unconditionally . The genocide is the opposite of that. The war would still be illegal even if it wasn’t a genocide because it’s an occupier attacking occupied people and because hamas offered the release of all hostages in exchange of Palestinians kidnapped by Israel in their jail .

    You can check multiple UN statement, you will never see term like Hamas should be disarmed as a perquisite to ending occupation like this

    https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/10/1155861

    It’s evidence of making weak actions that would have allowed Hitler to exterminate jews from Germany

    If it’s “just smoke screens” why does Netanyahu scream “antisemitism” every time another country announces one of these things?

    I would say it is evidence of a shift.

    If it’s not smoke screens Israel would behave more not accelerate genocide. Zionists and war criminals like Netanyahu are he is a good actor. Israel love to act offended by everything while deep down they laugh about western countries , arab countries statements and naive people like you

    • FishFace@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      If they don’t have valid proofs than they shouldn’t bomb or support bombing nuclear sites

      So just to be clear, you don’t have the relevant article of the convention to hand? I’m not an expert, but I did read a copy of it and couldn’t find anything that refers to military strikes. I think you’ve just heard this somewhere and are repeating it, but it’s not true - and, when challenged on it, you don’t acknowledge it.

      International law is clear Israel has the obligation to end occupation unconditionally

      Israel’s interference with Gaza and its continued occupation of parts of Palestine is not of the same magnitude as Russia’s invasion and annexation of Ukraine due to history going back decades.

      If it’s not smoke screens Israel would behave more not accelerate genocide.

      This assumes that European countries actually have the leverage to make Netanyahu change course. They don’t.

      And you call me naive.