Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[Silly McSilly Face]

So it's fine to do a 'pre-emptive' strike but not retaliate?
So Israel didn't have grounds to attack Iran re Hezbollah etc then, right?

You're allowed to both pre-empt and retaliate. The use of force must be proportionate to eliminating the threat faced. Can we attack Israel as "pay back" for a perceived wrong 40+ years ago? Nope. FYI, our friends across Le Chanel were far more balls deep in terms of supplying the Argies....most British losses in the Falklands were down to French exocet missiles and super etendard naval strike aircraft

 

[glorygloryeze]

You're allowed to both pre-empt and retaliate. The use of force must be proportionate to eliminating the threat faced. Can we attack Israel as "pay back" for a perceived wrong 40+ years ago? Nope. FYI, our friends across Le Chanel were far more balls deep in terms of supplying the Argies....most British losses in the Falklands were down to French exocet missiles and super etendard naval strike aircraft

Well, that sounds interesting: the Iranian strikes could be argued to be based on Netanyahu's proclamations that go back 40 years, so if he/Israel can feel a need to strike based on those, why Israel be struck by UK for something that far back as well?

Where do you draw the line in terms of "timeline window of retaliation"?

 

[LutonSpurs]

Under this guise everyone can attack everyone. It's not a feasible mindset if we want to stay alive. Israel obviously don't care about anyone living other than Zionists and people useful to their genocidal cause.

 

[Lost Mango]

Why would targeting civilians in New York be justified under that reading?

Because USA had been funding terrorist organisations overseas to encourage regime change and some of those involved decided that an attack on USA territory is therefore justified.

Funding is funding, surely?

Targetting civilians doesn't seem to be here nor there when it is USA/NATO/UK, Israel 'defending' themselves.

 

[Lost Mango]

Caroline test has evolved since the 1800s. Israel actually used it before to justify pre-emptive stile on Iraqi nuclear facility in 1981.

Yes, but it still needs to have an immediate threat that it is responding to. No such one exists currently to justify a pre-emptive strike.

Wow, Israel has used it to justify illegal actions before and not been called up on it. What a shocker!

 

[Silly McSilly Face]

Because USA had been funding terrorist organisations overseas to encourage regime change and some of those involved decided that an attack on USA territory is therefore justified.

Funding is funding, surely?

Targetting civilians doesn't seem to be here nor there when it is USA/NATO/UK, Israel 'defending' themselves.

We are discussing international law. You're either interested in knowing about international law and its application or you can just get on with making claims such as "Israel is in clear breach of international law" with the comfort of not knowing a single paragraph of public international law.....

 

[Silly McSilly Face]

Yes, but it still needs to have an immediate threat that it is responding to. No such one exists currently to justify a pre-emptive strike.

Wow, Israel has used it to justify illegal actions before and not been called up on it. What a shocker!

Not being called out on it is relevant as international law is not like municipal law, its essentially a lose collection of agreements and established norms of behaviour between states and therefore if a state does something that most other states accept as reasonable behaviour in the circumstances, that essentially says the action is "legal" in international law.

Although in the 1981 strike they were called out on it.

As to no such threat existing - you can't say that as you are not privy to the relevant information. Legal opinion from an international law expert:

Israel's strikes appear to meet the proportionality test in international law, the necessary test is essentially TBC:

Israeli strikes on Iran expert comments on legality - University of Reading

 

[Lost Mango]

Not being called out on it is relevant as international law is not like municipal law, its essentially a lose collection of agreements and established norms of behaviour between states and therefore if a state does something that most other states accept as reasonable behaviour in the circumstances, that essentially says the action is "legal" in international law.

Although in the 1981 strike they were called out on it.

As to no such threat existing - you can't say that as you are not privy to the relevant information. Legal opinion from an international law expert:

Israel's strikes appear to meet the proportionality test in international law, the necessary test is essentially TBC:

Israeli strikes on Iran expert comments on legality - University of Reading

Trump taking two weeks to think of his response would suggest it isn't an immediate threat.

I imagine opinions on whether it meets the test or not are available in all hues.

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/06/19/eu-divided-over-israels-right-to-bomb-iran

Are Israel’s actions in Iran illegal? Could it be called self-defence? An international law expert explains

This is not the first time Israel is advancing a broad interpretation of self-defence.

theconversation.com

 

[Grays_1890]

It don't help when Netanyahu is a Mad Cnut and Iran is full of Mad Cnuts. Is there not a result where he can get knocked off and Iran get taken out so everyone else can get on with their lives.

 

[Silly McSilly Face]

Trump taking two weeks to think of his response would suggest it isn't an immediate threat.

I imagine opinions on whether it meets the test or not are available in all hues.

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/06/19/eu-divided-over-israels-right-to-bomb-iran

Are Israel’s actions in Iran illegal? Could it be called self-defence? An international law expert explains

This is not the first time Israel is advancing a broad interpretation of self-defence.

theconversation.com

Depends on your interpretation of immediate, bearing in mind once Iran has nuclear weapons capability theres essentially no going back and no combating Iran without risking mutually self assured destruction. Therefore the threat of developing a nuclear weapon may be more imminent than it ever was and you've got to decide whether the Iranian regime with nuclear weapons capability is a tolerable threat or not. It's not an easy decision to authorise a US attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.