Parties to a conflict shall at all times distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. Attacks shall be directed solely against legitimate military targets.
If you look up the definition of military targets you will see
“In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.”
You can ask pretty much every lawyer that Hamas actually made the hospitals into legitimate targets under the Geneva Conventions. The only party that clearly broke that law without a doubt is Hamas.
what you quoted only makes the Hamas facility the target. Civilians inside that hospital are not valid targets.
Right. So Israel targets the Hamas facility. Sometimes, civilians in the hospital die as a result of attacks targeting the Hamas facility and Hamas individuals. This is what is commonly known as "collateral damage." It is a tragedy that should be minimized.
Is this article just three paragraphs? That’s all I see, but the summary at the top refers to things that aren’t in those three paragraphs, and it stops abruptly.
Seems kind of complicated to me. Why don’t countries just unilaterally put tarriffs on imports from countries with (corporate) income taxes that are too low, as well as countries that don’t also have similar tariffs?
Global tax is complicated. A reprisal tariff regime would be way way way more complicated. The US doesn’t want to be in a position where it’s levying 50% tariffs on Guinness because Ireland’s corporate tax rate is 12.5%. How do you know that tariff is fair and would the WTO even recognize uneven tax rates as a sanctionable offense?
No doubt there will be a legal battle, but there are 6 states with pending votes, and those six would be enough to cross the 270 electoral vote threshold. The legal battle will hopefully bring it into greater public consciousness.
It only needs approval from enough states to total 270 electoral votes among themselves to kick in, because those states will have pledged their electoral votes to the popular winner, even if the vote in any of those states favors another candidate. This is covered in the Wikipedia article linked above.
No, it won’t. That is how change has been sold for the last 40 years, and people are not only being paid significantly less, housing is quickly becoming too scarce for everyone to obtain too.
If meaningful change happens, it will because people revolted.
Pressure must be applied from many sources for real change to occur. Ballot power, media power, people power, any lever we can find. We should not fault others for passionately pursuing the changes they can make. This is a war with many fronts.
Pressure must be applied from many sources for real change to occur.
Yet without a real, existential threat, nothing meaningful is going to change. Hell, we just saw Roe go up in smoke while Democrats had the presidency AND Congress. Their response to this massive loss of liberty was to fundraise.
Nothing is going to change this trajectory except the Marsha P. Johnson school of brick throwing.
To be fair: Democrats also did absolutely nothing to get their SCOTUS nominee confirmed when Obama was president, though since we saw them exploit the Roe leak to make a cool $80,000,000, we kinda know where their priorities were anyway.
After four years of Trump, I’m not buying any excuses that the president is powerless.
How do you equate 80 million in donations so that or democracy is not eroded more to eroding that democracy itself? That’s some really silly logic if you ask me.
This was the entire point. If you loan out money that immediately gets paid to construction firms you own, you’re effectively just charging people (with interest) to be neocolonialized.
Forever war. Back in the day, the stronger side would just kill everyone in a march to the sea, salt the earth, and nothing would grow there for 300 years until humans finally scraped the dirt and made a small community again. It’s been happening over every religious war, every empire, and every tribe for all time.
Now, we don’t do that. But that means bad blood and prolonged conflict essentially forever, in a long simmering he said/she said involving beheadings and rockets. Best thing we can hope for is either a Korea situation, or some sort of “we’ll make this area into a national park where everyone can visit”, but neither side wants to live anywhere else, and hell will freeze over before all the Palestinians or Israelis are welcomed into the neighboring countries with open arms, lol.
My last bit of hope died when I learned that Hamas executed one of their generals on the rumor that he might have had sex with a guy. The fact that they stripped someone of their 1,000 person command, whipped him, forced him to not sleep, and then shot him three times over something so trivial is a really, reallllly bad sign for any hint of a two state solution. Or worse, cohabitation in a host country. They hate each other to an extreme I didn’t think was possible.
Religious conflict has only taken hold in the Middle East because SOME PEOPLE overthrew all of the (more) secular left-wing governments and replaced them with right-wing theocratic regimes.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.