UN secretary general visits Russia for BRICS summit despite Kyiv's criticism
UN secretary general visits Russia for BRICS summit despite Kyiv's criticism
"This is a wrong choice that does not advance the cause of peace. It only damages the U.N.'s reputation," Ukraine's Foreign Ministry said.
U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres arrived at the BRICS summit in the Russian city of Kazan on Oct. 22, despite criticism from Ukraine, Voice of America reported.
The BRICS group, a bloc of countries that includes Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the United Arab Emirates, is convening in Kazan for a three-day summit from Oct. 22-24. According to Moscow, 36 world leaders are participating in the conference.
Guterres is expected to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the event on Oct. 24, according to Russian presidential aide Yuri Ushakov.
Ukraine's Foreign Ministry criticized the U.N. secretary general's visit.
You're viewing part of a thread.
That's not what the principle of proportionality means. It has nothing to do with the death toll on each side. It's a principle that's applied to each individual strike and requires armed forces to ensure that any civilian deaths are proportional to the military objectives of the strike. Hamas and Hebollah are terrorist organizations that don't respect the laws of war, so that's a pretty big point in favor of Israel.
Second, many military experts have agreed that, given the conditions in which Israel is fighting this war, the civilian-to-combatant ratio in Gaza is among the lowest in the history of urban warfare. You've seen what Israel is capable of over the past year - it's patently obvious that the death toll could have been much, much higher.
Third, the moral judgment of rightness or wrongness in a conflict isn't determined by the death toll on each side. The winners of a war will typically suffer fewer casualties than the losers because that's a big part of how winners in war are determined. The fact that very few US civilians died in WWII compared to German civilians doesn't make the US the bad guys in that war.
There is one side in this conflict that is openly genocidal: the Iranian regime. They have literally admitted their goal is to destroy Israel. They have a doomsday clock in Tehran counting down to the death of Israel in the year 2040. And they are willing to sacrifice every single Palestinian life to make that happen.
That’s not what the principle of proportionality means.
Says who? The entire philosophy of a just war is about trolley problems - kill someone now, to protect someone later. Killing for anything else is just murder. Certainly, the UN doesn't say what you're suggesting, and Israel's arguments under international law have focused more on all of Gaza being a military target somehow, as opposed to it being okay simply because of their goals, or because proportionality doesn't apply outside of some very narrow situation.
Nothing is above human rights, and definitely not Bibi's career, which is really what's driving things here. Israelis themselves would rather make a deal. Everyone on the other side and Israel's allies would definitely rather make a deal.
Says international law. https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/proportionality#:~:text=The principle of proportionality prohibits,and direct military advantage anticipated”.
Hamas wants to make a deal if they can get what they want out of it. That's the whole reason they took hostages. Terrorists who take hostages shouldn't get what they want.
Yeah, I can read the definition as well as you can. What you're proposing is an interpretation of "military advantage" - one which would let any number of bad guys from history off the hook. Oh, and also Hamas - Oct 7 advanced their goals quite well, as you've pointed out with the hostages.
That's because we're discussing the definition of proportionality outside the broader context of the laws of warfare. It is a principle applied to specific strikes within the context of military action that is justified under international law. So no, it doesn't just license a group like Hamas to do what they did on the grounds that it helped them achieve their goals.
It is a principle applied to specific strikes within the context of military action that is justified under international law.
Okay, who says that. That's an incredibly narrow context, I'm not even sure what "strikes" would mean here - since it's usually applied to a tactical context that's way below the granularity of any military treaty I've ever seen.
Oh come on, there are well-established doctrines of internal law related to war - you know, the same "international law" that anti-Zionists love to accuse Israel of violating all the time.
'Strike' is the word I chose and may not be the word that actually appears in the documents that outline international law on the matter, but you get the point. This is a silly discussion.
I assure you, I don't know what exact rules you mean, and suspect they don't exist. (No shade on you, though)
As far as I know, proportionality is vague, but applies on every scale, in every situation. The actual lawyers for Israel have argued that their overall response has been proportional. (Because Hamas is hiding in the Gaza strip, and so it's all a legitimate target to vapourise. By that standard, they're right, and they've actually been generous, but it's a dumb standard)
Have you heard of the Geneva Conventions? How can you accuse Israel of waging war that is disproportionate and then turn around and say it's a vague term and international laws of war don't exist?
Vague insofar as it's totally left to courts and individuals to interpret what the exact threshold of disproportional is. That's why there's a cottage industry in dissecting the ethics of every individual thing the US did in it's recent wars. Damage and casualties are extremely lopsided here, though, even if you argue the lopsidedness is justified somehow.
I was trying to include the nuances to be fair to you, but apparently that was just confusing.
Have you heard of the Geneva Conventions?
The main mention is Article 57, called Precautions in Attack, and it has this nice little section:
- No provision of this Article may be construed as authorizing any attacks against the civilian population, civilians or civilian objects.
From a Westpoint academy article I just stumbled on, on proportionality:
The rule of proportionality requires that the anticipated incidental loss of human life and damage to civilian objects should not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected from the destruction of a military objective.
The military objective here being a few Hamas fighters sprinkled around, and civilians and civilian objects being all of Gaza. I'm now pretty certain there isn't a loophole based on what you're doing or thinking at the time, like you seem to be suggesting.
You can't cherry-pick one statement out of Article 57 and ignore everything else. Read the entire section. The whole point is to prohibit intentional attacks on civilians but to provide justification for attacks that harm civilians. Even attacks directly on civilians are justified under international law if those civilians are directly involved in hostilities. Here's a brief article that summarizes these concepts: https://hhi.harvard.edu/files/humanitarianinitiative/files/conduct_of_military_operations_in_urban_areas.pdf?m=1615497739