International Law: Right to Defense?

According to the Fundamental rule of the International Humanitarian Law:

7 - Parties to a conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants in order to spare civilian population and property. Neither the civilian population as such nor civilian persons shall be the object of attack. Attacks shall be directed solely against military objectives.

Question: Was (or is) Hamas in breach?

Answer: No.

Explanation:

International Law does not constitute the civil and criminal code of a Rechtstaat. International Law is a political tool for obtaining political objectives without using force on the basis of loosely established norms of behavior.

In this case, the question refers to the sort of gotcha that big wealthy states write into international regimes in order to snag poor states or non-state actors.

It does not apply because the critical language refers "civilian population" and the State of Israel is a signatory to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Under its terms the Zionist portion of the Israeli population constitutes not a civilian population but rather is a criminal population or maybe more accurately a criminal conglomeration of genocidaires. The State of Israel itself like its criminal conglomeration is a violator of the Convention. Exactly how such a situation of an unanticipated simultaneous violator and signatory of the Convention is supposed to be treated is unclear. How such a state signatory/violator is supposed to treat a conglomeration of criminals within its borders is also undefined.

One could legitimately argue that the State of Israel is obligated by the Convention to obliterate itself and its conglomeration of criminal genocidaires.

Here is the logic.

1. As a signatory the Israeli state has the obligation to prevent genocide, which it and its criminal conglomeration are committing.
2. The Israeli state as a signatory cannot wait for another signatory or some other agent of the Convention to intervene to stop the Israeli state and its criminal conglomeration as violators because during the waiting period both the state and the conglomeration will continue to commit genocide.
3. The only way for the Israeli state to guarantee that it will cease to commit genocide is self-obliteration.
4. It must obliterate its criminal conglomeration before obliterating itself because otherwise the criminal conglomeration would continue to commit genocide without the state.

Under such analysis of International Law, there is certainly no problem if the victim of Zionist genocide shoots missiles at the criminal Zionist genocidal population (conglomeration).

Obviously, in such a situation where the state signatory/violator is obligated to obliterate itself and its criminal conglomeration, neither the state nor the conglomeration has any right of self-defense whatsoever.

In addition, there is a tension between the theory of International Humanitarian Law and the precedent of Nuremberg Law, which I point out in Open Letter to Representative Capuano, who has been heavily involved with Zionist-orchestrated SaveDarfur activism.

Obviously, I am quite creative in spinning legal arguments, but no more so that the Israeli government and its advocates that love shyster lawering so much.

Turnabout is fair play, and after all the arguments are done, we can understand the complete legitimacy of Hamas rocket attacks and the complete illegitimacy of Israeli self-defense in two ways:

1. Racist, murderous, genocidal invaders, interlopers and thieves simply do not have the right to live in safety and security in a stolen country, often in stolen homes, and generally on stolen property.
2. A rape victim certainly has the right to kill her rapist while he is raping her, and effectively the Zionist invaders have never let up for a moment in their effort to ravage the Palestinian population since they first began to arrive in the 1880s. See the Time Line of Zionist Crimes. It is only a brief summary and is far from complete.

Proverbs 20:21 is equivalent to the first statement.

נַחֲלָה [כ מְבֻחֶלֶת] [ק מְבֹהֶלֶת] בָּרִאשֹׁנָה וְאַחֲרִיתָהּ לֹא תְבֹרָךְ׃

This verse tells us in a loose translation that is faithful to the meaning, “If you steal a legacy that is not yours, you will be hated and have no security [more literally its end result will not be blessed/secure].”

Sphere: Related Content