They couldn't keep from praising the guy for his role in the 10/7 attacks in their eulogy (see my first comment on your post) My guess is Israel knew who they were targetting. Looks like retaliation for a counter-attack.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
That's making the claim that Iran controls Hamas, which is not credible. It's far more credible to make the claim that Israel controls Hamas, since they created it to weaken the PA, and have ensured it received suitcases of $15M in cash monthly from Qatar ever since. Further the IDF clearly stood down for ~7 hours after the Hamas attack began, which can only be considered collusion. Finally, many of the dead Israeli civilians were killed by the IDF, as has been revealed by statements of IDF pilots and survivors, and examination of the evidence of Hellfire missiles at the rave, and tanks at the kibbutz (before Israel bulldozed it).
If you take things at face value, as you say.
Edit: neither is it lawful to attack a country for harboring a fugitive, as has also happened when Ecuador forcibly extracted Glas from the Mexican embassy. It is a war crime. Embassies are granted diplomatic immunity in order to prevent such crimes, and only rogue states violate such legal status. States that cannot respect the law regarding diplomatic immunity cannot participate in international diplomacy as a result, and war is the only diplomacy left them.
Mexico has taken it's complaint to the bar instead of prosecuting war. Iran did not, but neither was it required to under the laws of war.
I don't see that claim that Iran controls Hamas here. I see a claim that officials in the know let it slip that he was essential to the attack. If it is against the rules of war to attack an embassy, like it is to attack a hospital, then we may be seeing a pattern of depending on these protections as a military strategy.
We are certainly seeing a pattern of lawless war crimes on the part of Israel.
Regarding Iran, if Iran didn't control Hamas, then how could it be lawful to attack Iran as some sort of retribution for 10/7? Wouldn't the proper legal procedure be to request Iran turn over the alleged criminal for lawful prosecution?
Of course, that wouldn't work unless there was actual evidence they were a criminal.
I feel pretty sure that Israel considers themselves in a war that Iran helped to start. The individual was a military target because of what he did, perhaps they also had reason to believe he was still a threat. The fog of war is covering much of what we can know. This is deepened by the propaganda. I am always looking for how a story could have been staged or manuafactured by either side. This is why it is notable that we have an admission of why he was targetted after the official line had been they had no role in the attack.
Well, Israel officially started the war by attacking Iranian clay. That's the facts on the ground. Israel has clearly been agitating for this war - between the US and Iran - for decades. That makes what they say about this particular act without merit or meaning, as if anything serial liars say could have meaning or merit.
Again, there are procedures that have evolved from international relations regarding extradition of criminals. Starting wars with countries to kill the accused isn't lawful or acceptable diplomatically by any civilized nation.