According to Germany's Kiel Institute, Europeans have provided approximately $95 billion in military aid to Kyiv, compared with $75 billion from Washington. Most of the weapons, however, continue to be manufactured in the United States.
Which article of the convention? Noting that the convention is specifically about “nuclear material used for peaceful purposes” which Israel and its allies, as we know, do not agree with in the case of Iran.
If they don’t have valid proofs than they shouldn’t bomb or support bombing nuclear sites
International law is clear that responding militarily to a military attack (such as Oct 7th) is, in principle, justified.
International law is clear Israel has the obligation to end occupation unconditionally . The genocide is the opposite of that. The war would still be illegal even if it wasn’t a genocide because it’s an occupier attacking occupied people and because hamas offered the release of all hostages in exchange of Palestinians kidnapped by Israel in their jail .
You can check multiple UN statement, you will never see term like Hamas should be disarmed as a perquisite to ending occupation like this
It’s evidence of making weak actions that would have allowed Hitler to exterminate jews from Germany
If it’s “just smoke screens” why does Netanyahu scream “antisemitism” every time another country announces one of these things?
I would say it is evidence of a shift.
If it’s not smoke screens Israel would behave more not accelerate genocide. Zionists and war criminals like Netanyahu are he is a good actor. Israel love to act offended by everything while deep down they laugh about western countries , arab countries statements and naive people like you
If they don’t have valid proofs than they shouldn’t bomb or support bombing nuclear sites
So just to be clear, you don’t have the relevant article of the convention to hand? I’m not an expert, but I did read a copy of it and couldn’t find anything that refers to military strikes. I think you’ve just heard this somewhere and are repeating it, but it’s not true - and, when challenged on it, you don’t acknowledge it.
International law is clear Israel has the obligation to end occupation unconditionally
Israel’s interference with Gaza and its continued occupation of parts of Palestine is not of the same magnitude as Russia’s invasion and annexation of Ukraine due to history going back decades.
If it’s not smoke screens Israel would behave more not accelerate genocide.
This assumes that European countries actually have the leverage to make Netanyahu change course. They don’t.
The Amendment to the CPPNM significantly strengthens the original CPPNM in a number of important ways. It extends the scope of the original treaty to cover physical protection of nuclear facilities and nuclear material used for peaceful purposes in domestic use, storage and transport. It also further criminalizes offences related to illicit trafficking and sabotage of nuclear material or nuclear facilities, and it provides for strengthened international cooperation in light of the expanded scope, such as assistance and information sharing in the event of sabotage.
Israel’s interference with Gaza and its continued occupation of parts of Palestine is not of the same magnitude as Russia’s invasion and annexation of Ukraine due to history going back decades.
It doesn’t matter the different history and circumstances. All it matter is that Ukraine is occupied by Russia and Israel is occupying Palestine. Yet you make all kind of BS excuses to Israel.
This assumes that European countries actually have the leverage to make Netanyahu change course. They don’t.
Another stupid excuse. Those countries signed the Geneva convention and the genocide convention they have the obligation to cut ties with Israel, the international law doesn’t give a damn about the excuse “Oh, we couldn’t do better so we can’t be blamed”.
Yes Europe has the power to heavy sanction Israel itself and stop selling them any kind of military equipment’s and it’s part
The activities of armed forces during an armed conflict, as those terms are understood under international humanitarian law, which are governed by that law, are not governed by this Convention,
This Convention shall not apply to nuclear material used or retained for military purposes or to a nuclear facility containing such material.
And this is why I stand by that tongue-in-cheek reference to the ICC. International Law is complex and your assertion that Israel broke it by striking Iran is worth nothing compared to the opinion of experts. Your quoting of them is noted.
Another stupid excuse.
You said that the actions were “smoke screen” because they hadn’t caused Netanyahu to act. When I pointed out they don’t have the power to make him act, you only say they are obliged to by international law. I agree that they are, but can we agree then that your assertion that Netanyahu’s lack of response doesn’t have any bearing on whether the actions of European leaders are, in fact, steps in the right direction?
If they don’t have valid proofs than they shouldn’t bomb or support bombing nuclear sites
International law is clear Israel has the obligation to end occupation unconditionally . The genocide is the opposite of that. The war would still be illegal even if it wasn’t a genocide because it’s an occupier attacking occupied people and because hamas offered the release of all hostages in exchange of Palestinians kidnapped by Israel in their jail .
You can check multiple UN statement, you will never see term like Hamas should be disarmed as a perquisite to ending occupation like this
https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/10/1155861
If it’s not smoke screens Israel would behave more not accelerate genocide. Zionists and war criminals like Netanyahu are he is a good actor. Israel love to act offended by everything while deep down they laugh about western countries , arab countries statements and naive people like you
So just to be clear, you don’t have the relevant article of the convention to hand? I’m not an expert, but I did read a copy of it and couldn’t find anything that refers to military strikes. I think you’ve just heard this somewhere and are repeating it, but it’s not true - and, when challenged on it, you don’t acknowledge it.
Israel’s interference with Gaza and its continued occupation of parts of Palestine is not of the same magnitude as Russia’s invasion and annexation of Ukraine due to history going back decades.
This assumes that European countries actually have the leverage to make Netanyahu change course. They don’t.
And you call me naive.
https://www.iaea.org/publications/documents/conventions/convention-physical-protection-nuclear-material-and-its-amendment
UN experts condemn Israeli attack on Iran and urge end to hostilities
It doesn’t matter the different history and circumstances. All it matter is that Ukraine is occupied by Russia and Israel is occupying Palestine. Yet you make all kind of BS excuses to Israel.
Another stupid excuse. Those countries signed the Geneva convention and the genocide convention they have the obligation to cut ties with Israel, the international law doesn’t give a damn about the excuse “Oh, we couldn’t do better so we can’t be blamed”. Yes Europe has the power to heavy sanction Israel itself and stop selling them any kind of military equipment’s and it’s part
From the amended text of the Convention:
And this is why I stand by that tongue-in-cheek reference to the ICC. International Law is complex and your assertion that Israel broke it by striking Iran is worth nothing compared to the opinion of experts. Your quoting of them is noted.
You said that the actions were “smoke screen” because they hadn’t caused Netanyahu to act. When I pointed out they don’t have the power to make him act, you only say they are obliged to by international law. I agree that they are, but can we agree then that your assertion that Netanyahu’s lack of response doesn’t have any bearing on whether the actions of European leaders are, in fact, steps in the right direction?