Israel / Palestine

[Beebo]

Israeli spokesperson was suggesting it is acceptable for countries to target foreign leaders in third party countries.

In that case it’s basically open season and any country can kill any leader they don’t like anywhere.

It’s bonkers stuff. How legal is it under UN rules? Could they bomb UK targets?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Israeli spokesperson was suggesting it is acceptable for countries to target foreign leaders in third party countries.

In that case it’s basically open season and any country can kill any leader they don’t like anywhere.

It’s bonkers stuff. How legal is it under UN rules? Could they bomb UK targets?

They’ll be fine with a Hamas bomb going off in London tomorrow to kill Israeli prime minister, Isaac Herzog?

Good to know.

 

[briantrumpet]

Israeli spokesperson was suggesting it is acceptable for countries to target foreign leaders in third party countries.

In that case it’s basically open season and any country can kill any leader they don’t like anywhere.

It’s bonkers stuff. How legal is it under UN rules? Could they bomb UK targets?

I think Netanyahu, Putin, and Trump are testing the limits of 'international law' under the UN or any other assumed convention.

 

[spen666]

Not sure about that. How would the conversation have gone?

"Hi Marco, it's Ben. Is it okay if we do something that makes you and Donald look like complete chumps with no influence?"

"Fine by me but Donald is just having his dialysis so I'll need to get back to you."

"Ah. Sorry, I just pressed the launch button."

from the BBC

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq5jl77ygv4o

What did the US know and did Trump give a 'green light'?​

The office for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu put out a statement shortly after the strike, claiming the attack was "a wholly independent Israeli operation".
"Israel initiated it, Israel conducted it, and Israel takes full responsibility," it said in a statement.
The White House also quickly confirmed it was informed of the operation, almost certainly because of the proximity of the huge US airbase at al-Udeid, just outside Doha.
This means that Donald Trump had a chance to say no to Israel but chose to give a green light instead.
Given this was an attack on sovereign Qatari territory, questions remain over how this will affect the massive US airbase at al-Udeid and how it will affect US relations with all its Gulf Arab allies.

 

[First Aspect]

from the BBC

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq5jl77ygv4o

Yeah that's a "this will happen don't fire back" notification. It has been clear for some time, dating back to Biden, that Israel aren't listening.

The US complicity is that they still provide funding and arms sales. But I'm not convinced they have much sway right now in operational decisions.

At least in my view this is why Trump has gone from not really being happy with the war to supporting Nutteryahoo over the months. How else could he get him to agree, without changing his own mind?

 

[AndyRM]

Whatever bro, go read it yourself it's full off anti isreal and almost nothing remotely critical of Hamas, but you consider Al-jazeera also as a reliable source right?

FInd out about who created it, what they've done and how it's actually funded, bro.

And no, I don't consider Al Jazeera a reliable source, which I believe I have said on this thread before.

 

[First Aspect]

from the BBC

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq5jl77ygv4o

Did you actually read the White House statement?

 

[CXRAndy]

 

[AndyRM]

Hxmas? Poor wee snowflakes.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Still bitter because your lying about knowing what Rayner was thinking was called out on another thread?

I drew inferences from a report by Sir Laurie Magnus. You chose to say I saw them as 'facts'.

If you cannot tell that from lying it's you and not me who has a problem.

 

[spen666]

I drew inferences from a report by Sir Laurie Magnus. You chose to say I saw them as 'facts'.

If you cannot tell that from lying it's you and not me who has a problem.

Still not engaging


You claimed in your post to be telling us what Rayner thought, not your inferences.

If you hadn't lied and said it was Rayner's thoughts, then you wouldn't have been exposed for posting nonsense.


Still nice of you to engage in a different thread to explain why you are not engaging with me.