mikedilger on Nostr: Let me make my stance on Iran vs Israel explicit: 1. Hamas, Hezbollah, and the ...
Let me make my stance on Iran vs Israel explicit:
1. Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis are NOT Iran. They may be funded and supplied by Iran, they may get advice from Iran, but just like Ukraine is not the United States, these groups are not Iran and legally speaking, according to the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions and other international law, Iran is not culpable for the actions of these groups. The groups themselves bear full responsibility for their own actions.
2. Iran recently attacked Israel. This was the first time Iran ever attacked Israel AFAIK. They were very careful about it. They followed Chapter VII Article 51 of the UN charter, and reported to the Security Council their exercise of their right to self-defense before they attacked. They compiled with the proportionality rules of the 1949 Geneva Convention, and furthermore limited their attack to military targets, and not even to people but things like airstrips where nobody died. They didn't have to be that careful, but clearly they are trying to only send a signal, rather than escalate. They clearly announced afterwards that their attack was over and there would be no further retaliation, that the matter is now resolved.
3. There is no right of self-defense for a strike that was itself fully legally compliant self-defense. Israel has no right to respond.
1. Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis are NOT Iran. They may be funded and supplied by Iran, they may get advice from Iran, but just like Ukraine is not the United States, these groups are not Iran and legally speaking, according to the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions and other international law, Iran is not culpable for the actions of these groups. The groups themselves bear full responsibility for their own actions.
2. Iran recently attacked Israel. This was the first time Iran ever attacked Israel AFAIK. They were very careful about it. They followed Chapter VII Article 51 of the UN charter, and reported to the Security Council their exercise of their right to self-defense before they attacked. They compiled with the proportionality rules of the 1949 Geneva Convention, and furthermore limited their attack to military targets, and not even to people but things like airstrips where nobody died. They didn't have to be that careful, but clearly they are trying to only send a signal, rather than escalate. They clearly announced afterwards that their attack was over and there would be no further retaliation, that the matter is now resolved.
3. There is no right of self-defense for a strike that was itself fully legally compliant self-defense. Israel has no right to respond.