Middle East Defence & Security

[Karl Franz]

Evacuation of civilians from a warzone, not only is it perfectly legal, but is mandated of any armed force that chooses to uphold IHL.

Although I am not an expert, I do believe that under international law no country can order an evacuation on a territory of another country. There is of course an exception in military conflicts however even here a scope of evacuation must be limited, moving people away from the frontline not clearing regions of its population, and most importantly temporary, meaning everyone who was evacuated must be given right to return.

Even if forced evacuation was enforced, which is not feasible, would not have been classified as ethnic cleansing.
Central to the definition of ethnic cleansing is intent of ethnic homogeneity. An evacuated area and completely depopulated is not ethnically homogenous. The primary objective of clearing the northern half of Gaza is to reduce the threat area and nullify Hamas's main military strategy which relies heavily on territorial control.
For all I care it can be a closed military zone like the Golan, population 0.
This is a point I have repeated many times already.

Yes, because usually two or more ethnicities would live in the same region and then one of them would start ethnic cleansing so the region would be ethnically homogenous, however if single ethnicity lives in certain region and you expel it from it how else but ethnic cleansing would you call this? Whether the region remains empty or in my opinion more likely scenario of Israeli settlements starting to pop up is irrelevant.

I do not object. There is nothing to object about the concept of illegal annexation because it doesn't exist. There is no such thing as illegal annexation.
Like there is no such thing as an illegal car. A car can be not authorized for road driving (e.g. race car or car show model). It can be un-registered. Or lacking certain registrations or certifications. Or its owner being stripped of license. Or uninsured. Or impounded. But a car is not a concept which can be illegal.

The west is full of young people who grew up on the notion that any form of war is not only immoral but also illegal. This is not something that can be reasoned with. Nor can I find reason in attending a military-oriented forum to protest war as an illegal concept.

Annexation. That's what the mechanism is called. The act of legally redefining a state's borders is called annexation.

I don't know what you mean by this, annexation by its very definition is illegal, it literally means forcefully taking something, that's why we call Russian annexation of Crimea illegal, that's why Putin is trying so hard to get Ukraine to sign a legal document to transfer sovereignty from Ukraine to Russia for both Crimea and other provinces. That's why we called Trumps desire to take Greenland against the wishes of Denmark annexation. However if Trump can entice or intimidate Denmark into signing away Greenland to US we would no longer call it annexation but a treaty in which Denmark seeded Greenland to the US and that in the end would make it legal.

To move the subject closer to the region we are discussing, an example of the Golan Heights presents itself, which have been illegally annexed by Israel and are considered under international law an occupied Syrian territory. However if Israel and Syria sign a treaty in which Syria seeds the Golan Heights we would no longer be talking about annexation or occupation but simply Israeli territory.

To @Karl Franz and @SinisterMinister if you both wish to actually learn about military subjects, now is the time to stop making uninformed guesses with false confidence, and start understanding that defense is a deep and complex subject that must be studied objectively. If you dwell on falsehoods, you cannot progress.

Military subject is indeed a broad and difficult topic and I cannot speak in @SinisterMinister name but I do consider myself of course still learning and eager to do so. However the arrogance displayed by you has to be earned, and I have seen nothing in our conversation that warrants it.

 

[Feanor]

I do not envision what has happened. In hindsight, voluntary, then less than voluntary, then assisted evacuation (if and only where possible).
The entire northern Gaza has been issued evacuation notices in the past few days and weeks. Today was the notice for the last parts of Gaza city.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1939598256029254040

Whomever chooses to stay, risks themselves. In the early parts of the war, the IDF could afford to provide assisted evacuation, but now it's understaffed, and the hazard from going into buildings is far too great, so it's mostly voluntary self-evacuation now.
If IDF go into a building, that building's gone in that moment anyway.

Evacuation of civilians from a warzone, not only is it perfectly legal, but is mandated of any armed force that chooses to uphold IHL.

You can evacuate civilians from a war zone in principle. But generally a state of war is regarded as temporary. Are you envisioning their eventual return? Or their permanent displacement? I think this is where the situation changes.

Even if forced evacuation was enforced, which is not feasible, would not have been classified as ethnic cleansing.
Central to the definition of ethnic cleansing is intent of ethnic homogeneity. An evacuated area and completely depopulated is not ethnically homogenous. The primary objective of clearing the northern half of Gaza is to reduce the threat area and nullify Hamas's main military strategy which relies heavily on territorial control.
For all I care it can be a closed military zone like the Golan, population 0.
This is a point I have repeated many times already.

Where do you propose to move them to? Pack them even denser into the remains of Gaza? What are the consequences for the civilian population of measures such as these? One could argue that physical extermination of the population of Gaza also nullifies Hamas' main strategy. And it's not ethnic cleansing because the plan is to do it to all of them, not based on ethnicity. But these arguments ring hollow. You have a 7 figure population squeezed into a tiny area that's not allowed to act as an independent nation-state, but also not given the rights of Israeli citizens. The entire thing is essentially a giant ghetto, and the population is almost entirely of one ethnic and religious group. Now you're suggesting mass relocations of these people to nullify a strategy of territorial control that relies heavily on the sympathies of the population. This very much looks like ethnic cleansing. Again, the question stands, will they be allowed to return once the war ends?

I do not object. There is nothing to object about the concept of illegal annexation because it doesn't exist. There is no such thing as illegal annexation.
Like there is no such thing as an illegal car. A car can be not authorized for road driving (e.g. race car or car show model). It can be un-registered. Or lacking certain registrations or certifications. Or its owner being stripped of license. Or uninsured. Or impounded. But a car is not a concept which can be illegal.

Semantic horseshit. Annexation is an act. An action taken by an actor with agency. Actors are governed by laws. When their actions contradict the law, they are commonly referred to as illegal acts. Word games don't change that. There is such a thing as an illegal annexation.

The west is full of young people who grew up on the notion that any form of war is not only immoral but also illegal. This is not something that can be reasoned with. Nor can I find reason in attending a military-oriented forum to protest war as an illegal concept.

Other then your personal pet peeve to rant about I'm not sure what the relevance of this is. But since you want to open this can of worms, the UN Charter, which is binding international law as far as any member states are concerned, has something to say on the subject of legal and illegal wars. Not all wars are illegal. But many are. War is not an illegal concept but discussing the legality and illegality of specific wars and specific military actions is absolutely relevant to a military-oriented forum. I'd say that I'm not sure why you find this is displeasing, but I think I know.

Annexation. That's what the mechanism is called. The act of legally redefining a state's borders is called annexation.

You're playing word games again. One country can not simply legally redefine the borders of another country. Which country is Gaza a part of?

I don't know what you mean by this, annexation by its very definition is illegal, it literally means forcefully taking something, that's why we call Russian annexation of Crimea illegal, that's why Putin is trying so hard to get Ukraine to sign a legal document to transfer sovereignty from Ukraine to Russia for both Crimea and other provinces.

Curiously enough Russia has a better* legal argument for annexing Crimea then Israel would have for Gaza. Russia at least held a referendum. He's proposing emptying the region, and then simply declaring it annexed.

*Better does not mean good, just... better.

 

[Ananda]

Curiously enough Russia has a better* legal argument for annexing Crimea then Israel would have for Gaza.

Crimea once belong to Russia, and USSR simply give it to Ukraine more on administrative convenience Russo-Ukrainian War | EBSCO. Seems Russia also arguing on that base aside referendum one. Doesn't mean it is acceptable or legally debatable, but has as you say has more legal base to argue.

While Gaza and West Bank are not and never part of Israel, never been recognize as it is. It is just steal and robing the land whatever some in Israel try to argue.

 

[seaspear]

If one was to refer to biblical borders of Israel this would indeed show an increase in the size of present day Israel but times have changed

Biblical Boundaries of the Land of Israel

This map features the biblical boundaries of the Land of Israel as described in Genesis 15:18 and Genesis 17:8.

theisraelbible.com

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Re annexation of land through war the U.N which Israel is a member of have passed many resolutions on

TLDR:
The UN is not a legal authority, so should not be quoted. Its "expert interpretations" are notoriously flawed and best left to actual lawyers.

LEDR:
One of the most popular misconceptions on international law, is that the UN is the high authority defining, interpreting, and/or enforcing it.
In fact there is no relation between the two.

LOAC/IHL is a collection of laws from various conventions and treaties unrelated to or merely hosted in a UN forum.

The UNHRC in particular, which you quoted, has been known for decades to be the UN's most flagrant violator of human rights. Now only second to UNRWA, which has been globally criticized for extensive ties to terrorist organizations.
In fact, it became so severe, that in 2006 the UN shut down UNHRC and rebuilt it. Unfortunately over the years it evolved to again be as corrupt as before, but not shut down since.

The UN is also not a single entity. It consists of many agencies.
Two legal authorities in the UN are the ICC and ICJ. However the ICJ is generally respected, while the ICC is generally ignored, despite working in tandem.

So lesson #1:
Never quote the UN on matters of law.

Lesson #2:
They can be valid for quoting treaties/conventions formulated in a UN forum.

Although I am not an expert, I do believe that under international law no country can order an evacuation on a territory of another country. There is of course an exception in military conflicts however even here a scope of evacuation must be limited, moving people away from the frontline not clearing regions of its population, and most importantly temporary, meaning everyone who was evacuated must be given right to return.

If you claim evacuation orders are illegal, why do you then explain a pseudo-legal framework for evacuation?

Evacuations are not necessarily temporary. Military actions are evaluated based on their military advantage. That is, how much one stands to gain militarily from an action, vs how much unwanted damage is incurred.

Conquest for military advantage is normal, or in other words "an international norm".

Yes, because usually two or more ethnicities would live in the same region and then one of them would start ethnic cleansing so the region would be ethnically homogenous, however if single ethnicity lives in certain region and you expel it from it how else but ethnic cleansing would you call this? Whether the region remains empty or in my opinion more likely scenario of Israeli settlements starting to pop up is irrelevant.

It is not irrelevant because you skipped the core of the matter which is intent.

don't know what you mean by this, annexation by its very definition is illegal, it literally means forcefully taking something, that's why we call Russian annexation of Crimea illegal, that's why Putin is trying so hard to get Ukraine to sign a legal document to transfer sovereignty from Ukraine to Russia for both Crimea and other provinces

Annexation cannot be illegal.

However if Trump can entice or intimidate Denmark into signing away Greenland to US we would no longer call it annexation but a treaty in which Denmark seeded Greenland to the US and that in the end would make it legal.

If a treaty was signed, it would be followed by the legal action of annexation, which is legal.

move the subject closer to the region we are discussing, an example of the Golan Heights presents itself, which have been illegally annexed by Israel

Annexation cannot be illegal.

considered under international law an occupied Syrian territory

Annexation and occupation may be chronologically tied but are otherwise separate things.

You can evacuate civilians from a war zone in principle. But generally a state of war is regarded as temporary. Are you envisioning their eventual return? Or their permanent displacement? I think this is where the situation changes.

Permanent displacement to the Khan Younis metro area.

Where do you propose to move them to? Pack them even denser into the remains of Gaza? What are the consequences for the civilian population of measures such as these?

Khan Younis, and I do not principally object to Rafah as well if Israel can reform the border control on the Egyptian side.
The humanitarian consequences are a matter for the government of Gaza to decide and act upon.
In reality, the new Gaza would be far from being the most densely populated area in the world.

You have a 7 figure population squeezed into a tiny area that's not allowed to act as an independent nation-state, but also not given the rights of Israeli citizens

Between 2005-2023 they have indeed been a de facto independent nation.

Now you're suggesting mass relocations of these people to nullify a strategy of territorial control that relies heavily on the sympathies of the population.

Hamas grows in effectiveness with the more territorial control it has, because its current strategy is to boobytrap every building, and inflict maximum casualties that way.

I once again post this to illustrate the course of ongoing military action. This is Rafah, and it is being done in northern Gaza as well.
Northern Gaza is being systematically demolished and cleared to remove booby-traps, tunnels, and other military infrastructure.
This is very clearly NOT a place where civilians can stay.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1939601965207744744

This very much looks like ethnic cleansing.

You can call it ethnic cleansing if you like. You can also call me a martian man.

Again, the question stands, will they be allowed to return once the war ends?

I do not know what Israel decides. But IMO they shouldn't.

Semantic horseshit. Annexation is an act. An action taken by an actor with agency. Actors are governed by laws. When their actions contradict the law, they are commonly referred to as illegal acts. Word games don't change that. There is such a thing as an illegal annexation.

Words matter, because they are created to have meaning.
Can you provide one example of an illegal annexation?
Preferably one in which an authorized court of said annexing country has nullified the annexation.

Other then your personal pet peeve to rant about I'm not sure what the relevance of this is. But since you want to open this can of worms, the UN Charter, which is binding international law as far as any member states are concerned, has something to say on the subject of legal and illegal wars. Not all wars are illegal. But many are. War is not an illegal concept but discussing the legality and illegality of specific wars and specific military actions is absolutely relevant to a military-oriented forum. I'd say that I'm not sure why you find this is displeasing, but I think I know.

Can you then prove that the war being discussed is illegal?

You're playing word games again. One country can not simply legally redefine the borders of another country. Which country is Gaza a part of?

Gaza.


A few things regarding misconceptions plaguing this debate:
1. The war in Gaza is certainly legal. On October 7th when Hamas invaded Israel, and a day later when Hezbollah did so as well, they've done a LOT of illegal stuff. But every actor is judged separately, and Israel is in that war legally.

2. Any instance of challenging Israel's policies in court, resulted in exoneration.

3. Territorial change during war is normal and occurs in most wars between bordering nations.

4. Security-wise, Israel would benefit tremendously from annexing northern Gaza and maintaining a thick buffer zone into other areas of Gaza.
These benefits include shortening the border, lowering manpower demand and expenses, distancing Israeli population centers from Gaza, and thus effectively reducing the threat of invasion and artillery attacks from Gaza.

5. Annexation has an added benefit over occupation, being that it involves all democratic institutions in territorial decision-making and not just the executive, which in turn increases stability.

6. War in itself is legal, as is annexation, occupation, siege etc. These are terms used to describe legal frameworks. International law has no concept of an illegal occupation or an illegal siege. Only what an occupation or siege are, and what is legal or illegal to do within those.
So an occupation can be conducted in a manner that is illegal, but in itself cannot be described as illegal.

7. Syria lost the Golan in 1967 because it, as a state with agency, decided to gamble it in a war. If you start a war, you risk losing territory and other stuff.
Israel was required to take it to deny Syria key artillery positions used to attack the Galilee.
Similarly here, Gaza under Hamas chose to invade Israel, thus putting its territory under risk of taking if it loses the war.


And as a closing statement:
I heard complaints but none has actually criticized my opinions.
If you have another opinion, do share.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

If one was to refer to biblical borders of Israel this would indeed show an increase in the size of present day Israel but times have changed

Biblical Boundaries of the Land of Israel

This map features the biblical boundaries of the Land of Israel as described in Genesis 15:18 and Genesis 17:8.

theisraelbible.com

Why would anyone refer to biblical borders in reference to modern Israel?
All it does is fuel talk about the so called and extensively debunked "Greater Israel" conspiracy theory, created a long time ago for antisemitic purposes.

Military subject is indeed a broad and difficult topic and I cannot speak in @SinisterMinister name but I do consider myself of course still learning and eager to do so. However the arrogance displayed by you has to be earned, and I have seen nothing in our conversation that warrants it.

The universal truth is that it is easier to lie and that the abundance of idiots in this world means a lie will spread further than the truth.
But the complexity of defense means that even people who are not idiots, people who are intelligent, will fall for stupid lies if they do not approach new information rationally - with a scientific approach of theory, evidence, proof.
Throughout our discussions, I have provided evidence whenever asked. But you have refused time and again to provide evidence.
I have it on record many times that I asked you to substantiate, rationalize, prove, and you refused.
Refusal to substantiate is proof of lack of proof. It is also proof that you lack conviction in your arguments.
This hurts none but yourself. You will continue to say things you don't fully believe, disinforming only yourself, and stunting your progress.

 

[seaspear]

Why would anyone refer to biblical borders in reference to modern Israel?
All it does is fuel talk about the so called and extensively debunked "Greater Israel" conspiracy theory, created a long time ago for antisemitic purposes.


The universal truth is that it is easier to lie and that the abundance of idiots in this world means a lie will spread further than the truth.
But the complexity of defense means that even people who are not idiots, people who are intelligent, will fall for stupid lies if they do not approach new information rationally - with a scientific approach of theory, evidence, proof.
Throughout our discussions, I have provided evidence whenever asked. But you have refused time and again to provide evidence.
I have it on record many times that I asked you to substantiate, rationalize, prove, and you refused.
Refusal to substantiate is proof of lack of proof. It is also proof that you lack conviction in your arguments.
This hurts none but yourself. You will continue to say things you don't fully believe, disinforming only yourself, and stunting your progress.

I was referring to Anandas post above of:" West bank and Gaza are not never being part of Israel" to show in a historical context it was, not to argue for a change

 

[seaspear]

TLDR:
The UN is not a legal authority, so should not be quoted. Its "expert interpretations" are notoriously flawed and best left to actual lawyers.

LEDR:
One of the most popular misconceptions on international law, is that the UN is the high authority defining, interpreting, and/or enforcing it.
In fact there is no relation between the two.

LOAC/IHL is a collection of laws from various conventions and treaties unrelated to or merely hosted in a UN forum.

The UNHRC in particular, which you quoted, has been known for decades to be the UN's most flagrant violator of human rights. Now only second to UNRWA, which has been globally criticized for extensive ties to terrorist organizations.
In fact, it became so severe, that in 2006 the UN shut down UNHRC and rebuilt it. Unfortunately over the years it evolved to again be as corrupt as before, but not shut down since.

The UN is also not a single entity. It consists of many agencies.
Two legal authorities in the UN are the ICC and ICJ. However the ICJ is generally respected, while the ICC is generally ignored, despite working in tandem.

So lesson #1:
Never quote the UN on matters of law.

Lesson #2:
They can be valid for quoting treaties/conventions formulated in a UN forum.



If you claim evacuation orders are illegal, why do you then explain a pseudo-legal framework for evacuation?

Evacuations are not necessarily temporary. Military actions are evaluated based on their military advantage. That is, how much one stands to gain militarily from an action, vs how much unwanted damage is incurred.

Conquest for military advantage is normal, or in other words "an international norm".


It is not irrelevant because you skipped the core of the matter which is intent.


Annexation cannot be illegal.



If a treaty was signed, it would be followed by the legal action of annexation, which is legal.


Annexation cannot be illegal.


Annexation and occupation may be chronologically tied but are otherwise separate things.



Permanent displacement to the Khan Younis metro area.


Khan Younis, and I do not principally object to Rafah as well if Israel can reform the border control on the Egyptian side.
The humanitarian consequences are a matter for the government of Gaza to decide and act upon.
In reality, the new Gaza would be far from being the most densely populated area in the world.


Between 2005-2023 they have indeed been a de facto independent nation.


Hamas grows in effectiveness with the more territorial control it has, because its current strategy is to boobytrap every building, and inflict maximum casualties that way.

I once again post this to illustrate the course of ongoing military action. This is Rafah, and it is being done in northern Gaza as well.
Northern Gaza is being systematically demolished and cleared to remove booby-traps, tunnels, and other military infrastructure.
This is very clearly NOT a place where civilians can stay.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1939601965207744744

You can call it ethnic cleansing if you like. You can also call me a martian man.


I do not know what Israel decides. But IMO they shouldn't.



Words matter, because they are created to have meaning.
Can you provide one example of an illegal annexation?
Preferably one in which an authorized court of said annexing country has nullified the annexation.


Can you then prove that the war being discussed is illegal?



Gaza.


A few things regarding misconceptions plaguing this debate:
1. The war in Gaza is certainly legal. On October 7th when Hamas invaded Israel, and a day later when Hezbollah did so as well, they've done a LOT of illegal stuff. But every actor is judged separately, and Israel is in that war legally.

2. Any instance of challenging Israel's policies in court, resulted in exoneration.

3. Territorial change during war is normal and occurs in most wars between bordering nations.

4. Security-wise, Israel would benefit tremendously from annexing northern Gaza and maintaining a thick buffer zone into other areas of Gaza.
These benefits include shortening the border, lowering manpower demand and expenses, distancing Israeli population centers from Gaza, and thus effectively reducing the threat of invasion and artillery attacks from Gaza.

5. Annexation has an added benefit over occupation, being that it involves all democratic institutions in territorial decision-making and not just the executive, which in turn increases stability.

6. War in itself is legal, as is annexation, occupation, siege etc. These are terms used to describe legal frameworks. International law has no concept of an illegal occupation or an illegal siege. Only what an occupation or siege are, and what is legal or illegal to do within those.
So an occupation can be conducted in a manner that is illegal, but in itself cannot be described as illegal.

7. Syria lost the Golan in 1967 because it, as a state with agency, decided to gamble it in a war. If you start a war, you risk losing territory and other stuff.
Israel was required to take it to deny Syria key artillery positions used to attack the Galilee.
Similarly here, Gaza under Hamas chose to invade Israel, thus putting its territory under risk of taking if it loses the war.


And as a closing statement:
I heard complaints but none has actually criticized my opinions.
If you have another opinion, do share.

The International court of Justice made a ruling on the war in Ukraine that has some similarities to Events in Gaza

Summary of the Judgment of 31 January 2024 | INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

www.icj-cij.org

 

[Big_Zucchini]

The International court of Justice made a ruling on the war in Ukraine that has some similarities to Events in Gaza

Summary of the Judgment of 31 January 2024 | INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

www.icj-cij.org

That is a very long document. If you have a specific point to make, please quote the relevant part.

I was referring to Anandas post above of:" West bank and Gaza are not never being part of Israel" to show in a historical context it was, not to argue for a change

Understandable. Though you needn't look so far back. In 1967 Israel owned these lands, until it negotiated them away later on.