No. If you fire a rocket at someone with intent and they die it's called a "summary execution". You're getting confused with the situation where a death is unintended.

km

Then I agree with you Hamas was firing rockets at Israel before they retaliated then yes it would be murder.

I wasn't responding here to any statement you made, but to Carp's ...

Regardless, the UN has no enforcement mechanism -- such as a police or military force -- of its own. The legal mechanism is there, but the physical police/military mechanism to back it up is lacking. It needs the voluntary participation of the member states' militaries to even come close to such a force, and the efficacy of that scheme, while occasionally successful, obviously offers little deterrent for states/groups that wish to to completely ignore UN resolutions ... I mean, obviously Israel is right this instant quaking in its boots at the the thought that a UN force might actually compel them to observe UN resolutions, right?

To be truly effective, the UN would need a credible force neither beholding to nor relying upon any single nation's support, under the direct control of the UN itself rather than of single or collective member states ... basically a world police/military organization. But I don't think at this time very many governments would cede ultimate authority to such an entity ...



In a legal sense, yes, that would be the idea. In a practical sense, given that there is no real credible deterrent from them doing so, I'd say they are able to observe or ignore UN edicts as they please ...

Sorry, I got my wires crossed on that for some reason.


Try telling that to Afghan villagers who have lost loved ones in a bombing raid. There was a credible deterrent for Sadam to comply with UN Resolutions requiring destruction of wmd's wasn't there because if he didn't there was going to be a UN approved invasion. When in fact he did comply and the deterrent was seen to have worked France, Russia and China said that no further action was required - do you remember? Then there was Kosovo - credible deterrent. Afghanistan, credible deterrent. Israel, incredible deterrent because of US hypocrisy and double standards?

km

Yes, I do. And since the UN had no credible means to enforce it's decision, the US was able to proceed with its own agenda regardless without fear of consequence from the UN ...



Which in that case proves my point: in order for the UN to have a universal credible enforcement of it's edicts it cannot be dependent upon any single country or group of countries for its efficacy. It has to a) eliminate the right of any permanent member to veto the decisions of the majority and b) have an independent means of physical enforcement to assure those decisions ... neither of which currently exist.

I would also stipulate that in such a case provisions must also be made to protect minority rights from a potential tyranny of a majority ...

Kosovo was a mixed bag in that the official UN-mandated military force was pretty much impotent in attempting to protect the rights and lives of the minority and the innocent ...

And your example of Afghanistan is flawed because obviously there are elements which still effectively chose to ignore UN resolutions ...

Er ... so Hamas' firing rockets at civilian populations and some civilians die, it's a summary execution, yes?

I'd even go further and propose that even the targeting is a crime -- which is clearly stated by international law ...

You can't have the law apply to just one side you know ...

Arguably, yes. They may have a defence to any charges but that would be for prosecutors to assess and ultimately for the court to decide in the event of prosecution.


Quite so... which is why I apply it equally to both sides.

km

So the arguablity (if that's even a word) applies equally to Israeli actions, yes?



Odd. Your calls for Palestinian extremist atrocities to be be prosecuted have been markedly rare.

Well we know from Israel's public statements that the suspects will plead 'not guilty' to genocide on the grounds that their actions were in lawful self-defence. Most of us feel that such an argument wouldn't be upheld but of course each count will have to be considered on its merits.


Not really - I've repeatedly called for suspected war criminals to be put on trial even in this very thread. Since Israeli deaths and injuries are markedly rare compared to Palestinian ones it's usually more relevant one way than the other. Of course the defence of lawful force in self-defence and recovery of land is more obviously applicable to the Palestinian case than to Israeli's but the prosecutors will obviously assess whom to charge and whom not - and what the parties choose to argue at trial is obviously up to them.

In general however I agree with you - let's fast track this one... get the multinational force agreed at the UN and establish the Tribunal then the Security Council can take legal advice and issue the warrants of arrest - that will probably take about two months. Then there's compilation of the evidence and preparation of the indictments which would probably take another 2 months and of course the suspects would need a couple of months to consult their counsel and prepare their defence.

Shoot - what have we got - we'd probably be into August before all parties would be ready but, well, let's go for July if possible and fall back to August if for any reason there are any delays?

km

While it's possible to accept - lawful force in self-defence and recovery of land - isn't there still an overriding unlawful application of force in play also. Targetting civilians is unlawful. While it can be suggested that firing unguided munitions into a city is not specifically targetting - more akin to V1/V2 delivery systems in WWII - there is a general acceptance that there is expectation of civilian casualties in such delivery methods.

For example firing a gun into the air (though now covered in many US cities as unlawful), allowed for the possibility of casualties and a person could be prosecuted should someone be hit by their bullet. Similarly drink/drive laws tend to stem from the possibility of causing death, in spite of the fact that a defendant may claim "no intent" to cause harm, the act of driving a vehicle while intoxicated invalidates that no intent claim.