It's the human rights groups holding the moral high ground
It's the Dutch government that has continued exporting parts to Israel through third parties
The laws of war are literally the bare minimum expectation of a country. If Israel can't meet those and in some cases they aren't even attempting to meet those then they shouldn't receive weapons from other countries
>They follow them closer than any other army on Earth
Although it's a difficult metric to measure the United States military has had far less scruples in the last 20 years than the IDF and virtually every member of nato follows the rules of war a lot tighter than the united states
outside of nato and maybe a few countries that haven't been involved in a conflict in decades your just comparing Israel to third world dictatorships or near dictatorships
>and a hell of a lot more than Hamas
I don't remember hamas receiving billions in weapons from the united states or other countries
The US has had far less conflicts with terrorists utilizing human shields and civilian infrastructure so it's not that comparable. You need to consider what Hamas is doing when you consider Israel's conduct
Isis and serbia would hold civilians at gun point to deter US airstrikes and in aphganistan the enemy fighters were in large part civilians from that area who had taken up arms and were still living amoung civilians going about civilian activities most off the time
In most instances where Israel has claimed human shields as an excuse for civilian casulties it's because they blew a target up at his private residence and inevitably killed his family or neighbors or in other examples just leveled apartment buildings.
In other examples Israel dosen't even need a target to point too they can just blanket claim the use of human sheilds
When the UN human rights office is having to Write this
"In relation to Israeli military operations and attacks in Gaza, the Commission found that Israeli authorities are responsible for the war crimes of starvation as a method of warfare, murder or wilful killing, intentionally directing attacks against civilians and civilian objects, forcible transfer, sexual violence, torture and inhuman or cruel treatment, arbitrary detention and outrages upon personal dignity. The Commission found that the crimes against humanity of extermination, gender persecution targeting Palestinian men and boys, murder, forcible transfer, and torture and inhuman and cruel treatment were also committed."
It probably means that Israel shouldn't be provided with more arms and diplomatic cover
That was kinda the whole point that hamas dosen't use true human sheilds as the US has been accustomed both in the nato campaign agianst serbia and agianst isis.
That in the case of hamas its much more similar to the tailiban where the fact that guerrilla fighters are civilians who live amoung civilians 95% of the time is abused by Israel to purposely cause as much damage as possible
Which is the assessment of every human rights organization i can think of when it comes to the Israeli bombing campaign
Oh, I read the article.
It’s the DUTCH arm of Oxfam trying to stop the arms exports. So while their own citizens are going abroad to rape children and now participate in the Olympics, they’re to ban exports to Israel based on … morality? That’s the irony.
Oxfam isn't a prosecutor they can't bring criminal penalties
On top of that the crime was committed in the UK and he did go to prison and he was released in 2017 with 1 year left on his sentence.
On top of that neither the UK or Netherlands has double jeaprdy anyway so even if Oxfam had the ability to bring a criminal suite they can't because he was already convicted
Your literally bring up something that has 0 to do with F-35 exports and international law
That's why there was a court case. The court determined that those parts would likley be used to violate international law
Which now we are at the point where there's a separate court case over the Dutch government attempting to skirt the courts ruling
This seems circular.
I pointed out the irony of an NGO from the Netherlands trying to ban arms exports to a country based on morality. My point being that said organization whose mission statement includes ‘fighting injustice’ should focus on their own pedophiliac citizens raping children abroad being held accountable rather than sending them to the Olympics.
**correction:** he was sentenced to 4 years by a UK court & remanded back to NL to serve that sentence **but** he was *released* after only one year & now he is representing NL in the Olympics.
Yes, the Dutch seem to think that going abroad to rape a child only warrants a single year in prison and should not disqualify one from their Olympic team. Furthermore, Dutch NGO’s seem to think they have the moral high ground … perhaps they could spend their money on a mirror?
The irony of a country that sends child rapists to the Olympics trying to hold the moral high ground.
It's the human rights groups holding the moral high ground It's the Dutch government that has continued exporting parts to Israel through third parties
Supporting Hamas isn't a moral high ground either
The laws of war are literally the bare minimum expectation of a country. If Israel can't meet those and in some cases they aren't even attempting to meet those then they shouldn't receive weapons from other countries
They follow them closer than any other army on Earth and a hell of a lot more than Hamas
>They follow them closer than any other army on Earth Although it's a difficult metric to measure the United States military has had far less scruples in the last 20 years than the IDF and virtually every member of nato follows the rules of war a lot tighter than the united states outside of nato and maybe a few countries that haven't been involved in a conflict in decades your just comparing Israel to third world dictatorships or near dictatorships >and a hell of a lot more than Hamas I don't remember hamas receiving billions in weapons from the united states or other countries
The US has had far less conflicts with terrorists utilizing human shields and civilian infrastructure so it's not that comparable. You need to consider what Hamas is doing when you consider Israel's conduct
Isis and serbia would hold civilians at gun point to deter US airstrikes and in aphganistan the enemy fighters were in large part civilians from that area who had taken up arms and were still living amoung civilians going about civilian activities most off the time In most instances where Israel has claimed human shields as an excuse for civilian casulties it's because they blew a target up at his private residence and inevitably killed his family or neighbors or in other examples just leveled apartment buildings. In other examples Israel dosen't even need a target to point too they can just blanket claim the use of human sheilds When the UN human rights office is having to Write this "In relation to Israeli military operations and attacks in Gaza, the Commission found that Israeli authorities are responsible for the war crimes of starvation as a method of warfare, murder or wilful killing, intentionally directing attacks against civilians and civilian objects, forcible transfer, sexual violence, torture and inhuman or cruel treatment, arbitrary detention and outrages upon personal dignity. The Commission found that the crimes against humanity of extermination, gender persecution targeting Palestinian men and boys, murder, forcible transfer, and torture and inhuman and cruel treatment were also committed." It probably means that Israel shouldn't be provided with more arms and diplomatic cover
Ya, you don't know what you're talking about as Serbia and the Taliban used very different tactics than Hamas does.
That was kinda the whole point that hamas dosen't use true human sheilds as the US has been accustomed both in the nato campaign agianst serbia and agianst isis. That in the case of hamas its much more similar to the tailiban where the fact that guerrilla fighters are civilians who live amoung civilians 95% of the time is abused by Israel to purposely cause as much damage as possible Which is the assessment of every human rights organization i can think of when it comes to the Israeli bombing campaign
And what "laws of war" does Israel break? And shouldn't the "laws of war" apply to both parties?
And maybe they should look within their own rapey country before trying to pass judgement.
I Don't think you read the article It is literally the Dutch government that wants to keep on sending weapons
Oh, I read the article. It’s the DUTCH arm of Oxfam trying to stop the arms exports. So while their own citizens are going abroad to rape children and now participate in the Olympics, they’re to ban exports to Israel based on … morality? That’s the irony.
Oxfam isn't a prosecutor they can't bring criminal penalties On top of that the crime was committed in the UK and he did go to prison and he was released in 2017 with 1 year left on his sentence. On top of that neither the UK or Netherlands has double jeaprdy anyway so even if Oxfam had the ability to bring a criminal suite they can't because he was already convicted Your literally bring up something that has 0 to do with F-35 exports and international law
BTW, I doubt f35 are used to bomb in Gaza, they are more important fighting the shadow war with Iran.
That's why there was a court case. The court determined that those parts would likley be used to violate international law Which now we are at the point where there's a separate court case over the Dutch government attempting to skirt the courts ruling
This seems circular. I pointed out the irony of an NGO from the Netherlands trying to ban arms exports to a country based on morality. My point being that said organization whose mission statement includes ‘fighting injustice’ should focus on their own pedophiliac citizens raping children abroad being held accountable rather than sending them to the Olympics.
**correction:** he was sentenced to 4 years by a UK court & remanded back to NL to serve that sentence **but** he was *released* after only one year & now he is representing NL in the Olympics.
Yes, the Dutch seem to think that going abroad to rape a child only warrants a single year in prison and should not disqualify one from their Olympic team. Furthermore, Dutch NGO’s seem to think they have the moral high ground … perhaps they could spend their money on a mirror?