Answer our questions first. We've stated over and over already what points we dispute you on. That has not changed. Are you going to provide us with your proof, spelled out by law, or not?Stan187,
Upon which point do you challenge my statement?
I said indiscriminate warfare is forbidden under international law. Do you disagree?
I said using cluster munitions in populated areas is inherently indiscrimiante warfare. Do you disagree?
I said Landmins are forbidden as indiscrimiante weapons. Do you disagree?
I said unexploded munitions become de facto landmines. Do you disagree?
As for military necessity and proportionality, the burden is upon Israel to demonstrate that their attacks met the requirements under international law, including Article 51 of Geneva Protocol I.
That's an elementary moral and legal truism.
Yours is the "guilty until proven innocent" logic. I'm working with the assumption that the targets of armed attacks are innocent victims of criminal acts. The burden is upon the party engaging in violence to demonstrate that their attacks met the requirements under international law, including Article 51 of Geneva Protocol I.
We needn't "prove" that Hezbollah's firing of rockets into Israel had no military necessity that would justify them or that the attacks were not proportional to any military objective. The burden of demonstrating that its use of force is legitimate is upon Hezbollah.
Under international law, it is a crime to acquire territory through the use of force. Hence UN resolution 242 of 1967, recognizing the inadmissability of the acquisition of territory through war and calling upon Israel to withdraw from the illegally occupied territories.
As for the ethnic cleansing of the Arab population, it occured. That's not a controversial statement. Nor do I have any interest in discussing whether it could have been carried out more efficiently.