Netanyahu tells Israel ‘We are at war’ after Hamas launches an unprecedented attack, killing at leas

Not to mention that Hamas/MB (largely interchangeable) electoral successes have been after deeply corrupt governments propped by Western interests have been ruling. Their main electoral pitch is not foreign policy, it is "clean government" in delivery of services. And they deliver at the outset before clamping down and oppressing.

 

For purposes of international law and rules of engagement, is Hamas considered a mere terrorist group or is it treated like a government since it has a political arm and has been elected in Gaza? We obviously took out Bin Laden while he was in a foreign country. For that matter, it's worth noting that the U.S. killed a major general of Iran a few years ago by drone strike. Any reason the leadership of Hamas isn't fair game? From what I've read, it appears that the purported leader of Hamas is comfortably making press statements from his office in Qatar? Any reason he should still be breathing while the civilians in Gaza are getting bombed and reported to be running out of food and water? I feel like these terrorist leaders are always expecting other people to do the actual dying.

Sorry if this is a dumb approach, but the whole thing is just frustrating me.

 

Indeed. To whatever extent Palestinians support Hamas and its actions now, its because they are the ones willing to fight Israel in a time where that is basically the only alternative allowed by the rest of the world. Non-violence has been attempted and been met by Israeli violence, Western sympathy has done nothing no move the needle. BDS is basically illegal in the US lol. As long as being forcibly displaced or fighting are the only options available, I don't expect that to change.

 

They are fair game, even under international law. A more knowledgeable international lawyer, and there used to be one on GC, would talk about the steps you need to go through to write the memo. From my limited knowledge, would not be that hard.

But taking him out in Qatar would violate international law. It is the location, not the individual.

 

If we haven't learned that international law only applies to those weak or isolated enough to be punished, what have we learned?

 

Something I found quickly. Don't know the source, though the initial graphs conform to my memory, and this was written over 2 years ago. The whole thing is worth reading, especially in the context of "these Palestinian children bring this upon themselves"

For one thing, Hamas’s success in the 2006 elections—which gave the group control of the Gaza Strip—was not because most Palestinians in Gaza shared Hamas’s Islamist ideology or supported its proclivity for violence. Rather, Hamas succeeded largely because the majority of Palestinians were disgusted with the blatant corruption of the Palestinian Authority (PA) under the Fatah party. The widespread corruption within the Palestinian political establishment is widely studied and documented. The PA has been known to fraudulently use U.S. financial assistance and international development aid. PA President (and Fatah leader) Mahmoud Abbas—like his predecessor Yasser Arafat—has amassed extravagant wealth while in office. He’s taken over organizations that were supposed to serve the interests of the Palestinian people, such as the Palestinian Investment Fund, and channeled their resources to line his pockets and those of his allies. He’s refused to be audited, and the lack of transparency and accountability has allowed corruption to go unchecked. So when Palestinian voters went to the polls in 2006, their only choices were the radical, violent Hamas or the corrupt PLO. And in Gaza, where Fatah’s hold was less strong, they chose Hamas because it was the less corrupt option.

Furthermore, at the time of the 2006 elections, it seemed that there was at least a chance that Hamas would turn out not only to be less corrupt than Fatah, but more pragmatic and open to moderation than the group’s violent history would suggest. To be sure, part of Hamas’s appeal was its reputation for its unwavering opposition to Israel. But although Hamas’s violent, anti-Semitic charter remained in place at the time of the election, and the organization had certainly not renounced violence, Hamas participated in the 2006 Palestinian elections with the promise that if Israel were to desist from its offensive against Palestinians, it would refrain from attacking Israel.

A Closer Look at Corruption, Hamas, and Violence in the Gaza Strip

Here is the main paper it links to, from 2006. Only abstract available

The Hamas Victory: Shifting Sands or Major Earthquake? on JSTOR

 

The two party system keeps winning!

 

Did we violate international law by taking out Bin Laden? If so, was it morally justified? Also, I wonder, under international law, what obligation Qatar or other countries may have to turn over Hamas leaders who have publicly admitted to these atrocities. It's just hard to fathom to me if international law allows Hamas leaders to give orders from their safe havens while civilians in both Gaza and Israel are dying. I also have ethical struggles about what happens when one side might generally be following international law and the other is making no pretense about even caring. Again, I have lots of questions and no answers.

 

I am way out of my lane, but I was answering your query based on Ismail Haniyeh being a quasi head of state. OBL was not. Arguably, we would have had to request extradition from Pakistan given that he was indicted, but you can make a finding of futility around it, and we did. (hope I recall correctly).

I understand your frustration, but a lot of statecraft and international rules are set up because the alternative would be worse if the system were not in place. It's like the way that Treasury officials never want US control of the international banking system as an instrument of foreign policy, because a lack of confidence in our banking system would lead to worse consequences, especially for the US. The right of sovereign countries to give refuge to an individual and to not turn them over absent preexisting treaty obligation or perceived national interest, is sacrosanct among the nations powerful enough to enforce it, and Qatar has a ton of soft power, despite what Jared thinks

 

So your vote is for an accident, then? A nice, internationally legal gas leak in his apartment. Something like that.

 

Yeah, this makes sense to me, too.

 

Seems like it was kind of a big deal that India might be behind the assassination of a Sikh activist in Canada. Of course the Modi government denies it, we didnt really deny much about the Bin Laden raid. I would not be surprised if the Pakistanis had a part in tipping us off.

 

Agree with first two sentences, not last

 

Wonder if international pressure to expel him would be a viable option? Send him back to Gaza and let the chips fall where they may

 

Also as I recall, the Obama administration assassinated an American citizen and his son in Yemen, so I don't think due process was on the menu even for US nationals deemed enemies of the state.

 

That may happen. I would usually say they would not give in, but the sheer heinousness of the attack may mean they don't want to keep giving him refuge. More likely, they would give him a STFU for awhile order as the price of refuge. It's one thing for people to know he is there, it's another for people to hear his pronouncements.

But remember the Quataris have a self appointed role as interlocutors between hostile powers in the region. So they feel strongly their guarantees have to mean something. Lots of exchanges and negotiations happen through them because everyone trusts them.

 

But that was US law at issue. It was a stretch, and the son/follow up was really indefensible. But he was a US national taking up arms (rhetorical arms) against us, under the AUMF.

 

I know, just an example of commitment to due process in those scenarios, even when US law was applicable. If we were going to do that, violating international law in similar circumstances wasnt going to be much of a barrier, given the target and supposed threat.

 

“Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” ― Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War (Fifth Century BCE)