When is a war not a war?

[old man emu]

We are accustomed to the issuing of a declaration of war being issued when a country starts using military might against another country. I believe that under International Law such a declaration invokes certain rules of engagement, mainly to protect non-combatants. 

 

At present we have the State of Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran using military weapons against each other, and very often without consideration for the safety of non-combatants. I have not heard that a declaration of war has been issued  by either Nation. So are they engaged in a war, or are they ignoring International Law. 

 

I suppose that if they are not signatories to those laws, they both can do what they like, but their actions put them outside the pale of acceptable, civilised behaviour.

 

What gets me is that the government of the State of Israel claims that it is acting in self defence, however I see no invading army crossing its borders. In the 21st Century, does the word “invasion” now mean  an aerial crossing  of a border by destructive devices?

[rgmwa]

A war is not a wsr when it’s a Special Military Operation which is when one country attacks another.

[red750]

https://www.9news.com.au/world/donald-trump-is-facing-heat-from-all-sides-but-his-fateful-iran-decision-is-one-only-he-can-make/0c49d1a6-c304-4f7f-987c-11c2e939d848

[red750]

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/hard-to-come-back-from-this-trump-s-call-for-surrender-sparks-fear-us-is-going-to-war/ar-AA1GUccm?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=d30eabfd66c14ba7e196cfeae4c3d3a5&ei=19

[Jerry_Atrick]

8 hours ago, old man emu said:

We are accustomed to the issuing of a declaration of war being issued when a country starts using military might against another country. I believe that under International Law such a declaration invokes certain rules of engagement, mainly to protect non-combatants. 

 

I was thinking about this. At (Western) law, formal words are not the only things courts use to determine a state of affairs, nor a declaration - say for example in Australia - of the union of a couple giving legal rights akin to those of marriage. So, why do we need such formal declarations of war to start a war? So, I asked Mr Google, and his AI responded: 

 

"The Geneva Conventions don't prescribe a specific procedure for declaring war. However, they do outline rules for how armed conflicts, both declared and undeclared, should be conducted. While declarations of war were once common, they are no longer a prerequisite for the application of the Geneva Conventions."

 

I would guess form the news over the last umpteen years, it is pretty clear that Iran and Israel have been at war, usually via proxies, such that a declaration is not needed. 

8 hours ago, old man emu said:

At present we have the State of Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran using military weapons against each other, and very often without consideration for the safety of non-combatants. I have not heard that a declaration of war has been issued  by either Nation. So are they engaged in a war, or are they ignoring International Law. 

Ignorning the formal declaration of war, the Geneva convention would still apply if they are signatories. Even so, a war unfortunately claims civilian lives - it is the nature of the beast. No county fully segregates is civilians from its military. And I believe both sides are largely targetting military or government assets. Whether civilian only assets are intentionally being targetted I think will become evident in the days to come. Yes, Israel hit the state run TV station - although ironically that viral video of the news reader running for her life may have been spouting stuff about god protecting iran from bombs falling on them at the time according to some translations I have seen - which would at best be treated with caution.. I am not sure that would qualify for independent news service of, say, the ABC, BBC, and the like. However, happy to be corrected. 

 

8 hours ago, old man emu said:

I suppose that if they are not signatories to those laws, they both can do what they like, but their actions put them outside the pale of acceptable, civilised behaviour.

What is acceptable civilised behaviour in a war? I don't mean this in an ideological context that all war is bad, etc (which I do agree with). I mean, if they are clearly at war with each other, as has been clear for years, and they are targeting most military and government assets and trying to minimise the civilian casualties. I would imagine in war, the grey areas of rules will be much wider than that of normal civilian life. Note, I haven't seen the latest reports this morning, or from what I have seen of them, doesn't indicatte strategic targeting of civilian assets from both sides.

 

Also, these assertions are not limited to Iran and Israel. Russia famously didn't declare war in 2014 or their last invasion and were more sneaky the second time around. Yet, the world knew what they were up to. The other, non-Israel involved ME wars are brutal, and the many other skirmishes over the last 30 or so years, ironically with the exception of the yanks, have not had formal delcarations or notices of war/invasion. 

 

8 hours ago, old man emu said:

I suppose that if they are not signatories to those laws, they both can do what they like, but their actions put them outside the pale of acceptable, civilised behaviour.

 From Google AI: "Both Israel and Iran are parties to the main Geneva Conventions of 1949. However, neither has ratified the Additional Protocols I and II of 1977, which provide further protections for victims of armed conflict" 

 

8 hours ago, old man emu said:

What gets me is that the government of the State of Israel claims that it is acting in self defence, however I see no invading army crossing its borders. In the 21st Century, does the word “invasion” now mean  an aerial crossing  of a border by destructive devices?

oi, Iran hasn't directly invaded Israel.. it does it by proxy through funding any of the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist organisations with one aim only... And they regularly attack Israel - even before October 16th, Hamas used to fire rockets daily into Israel. And the others would regularly attempt some attack or other. So, the idea that Iran hasn't attackde or invaded Israel is only in the literal sense. A person who employs a hitman to kill someone is also guilty of the murder (or at least incitement).  

 

In terms of invasion, i the literal sense, firing rockets and missiles across a border is not an invasion of people or armed forces. However, isn't doesn't the Geneva convention regulat war. I would suggest that these days you don't need to have troops on the ground to fight a war. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Terrible form to quote oneself, but as I wrote the above in a hurry, it is only for correction when I was able to re-read:

 

52 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

oi, Iran hasn't directly invaded Israel..

should read OK, Iran hasn't directly invaded Israel.

 

and 

52 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

In terms of invasion, i the literal sense, firing rockets and missiles across a border is not an invasion of people or armed forces. However, isn't doesn't the Geneva convention regulat war. I would suggest that these days you don't need to have troops on the ground to fight a war. 

should read

In terms of invasion, in the literal sense, firing rockets and missiles across a border is not an invasion of people or armed forces. However, doesn't the Geneva convention cover war as opposed to merely invasion? I would suggest that these days you don't need to have troops on the ground to fight a war if we look at ICBMs, UAVs, drones and the like. 

 

and to add..

 

Put simply, if a systematic attack using these methods was perptrated by, say China on Taiwan, or Australia, with the intention of subduing the population, would this not be an act of war and shouldn't the Geneva convention (assuming all are signatories and have given it effect in their domestic legal systems) kick in?

Edited June 18 by Jerry_Atrick

[onetrack]

The Middle East is the crucible of all wars, every nation there loves killing off neighbouring tribes, it's the history of the place for thousands of years - it's only been since WW2 that there has been long periods of relative peace (interspersed by short wars, of course, such as the Six Day War). As one lot of dictatorial warmongers is killed off, another dictatorial warmonger, or warmongering group, arises to replace the ones bumped off.

 

Trump would be well-advised to steer clear of any involvement, because there's nothing surer the enemies of America in the Middle East will be hatching another 911 attack on the Great Satan, as of right now.

[facthunter]

Trump will NEVER take advice. He'd have to UNDERSTAND it to heed it. His lob is to give directions  exact revenge  on those who oppose him, Make demands and get richer.  Nev

[nomadpete]

The tacoman is sure to back away from actively (rather than the present covertly) bombing Iran