Rules of engagement or not, the American invasion caused plenty of unnecessary civilian deaths. In this case, I think the comparison between Bush and Netanyahu is quite apt, though Bush was smart enough not to use as much incindiary language while the people serving his country hurt so many people. The October attacks and the following excessive military response was not unlike what happened after 9/11.
Though there's hardly any concensus (partially because the ICC doesn't use the American court system, and therefore isn't supported by many American legal professionals), American scholars have written about how Bush would be accountable under international law. Nothing has ever come of it as far as I know, but I believe that's only the case because no country dares risk the political war with one of the world's leading military and political powers.
> Its not that there is a war, its how its conducted.
The shitshow that happened after 9/11 ended up with war crimes committed in a war fought over invented weapons if mass destruction. I would argue that the war being there can be reason enough to hold people accountable.
At some point, this sort of thing deserves to be mocked. Look, if civilian deaths are not allowed in war at all (like all are intolerable to the point where pacifism is the only option), then we must condemn the Allies in World War II, who caused untold civilian deaths. Are you ready to go there?
The solution to belligerence cannot be wishful thinking and unicorn farts
Some of the things the allies did in the second world war were horrific. Overall, beating the nazis was a good thing, but both sides committed war crimes out of bloodlust and revenge.
If you allow yourself to execute carpet bombings on civilians "for the good cause", don't be surprised when the enemy does the same. 9/11 caused a fraction of the destruction and innocent deaths of bombings in either side, yet we don't (and shouldn't) accept that as some side effect of fighting "the enemy".
War crimes are a fact of just about every military conflict, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't convict those that commit them.
> War crimes are a fact of just about every military conflict, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't convict those that commit them.
This encourages total war. After all, if every war is subject to the scrutiny of ever changing standards, what's the point in even paying them any attention? Might as well just win and so terrorize everyone that everyone's too scared to do anything.
At the end of the day, this is obviously a ridiculous standard. Civilian deaths in war are to be expected, which is why we should generally only fight wars that are truly justified. I can't think of a more justified war than Israel and Gaza, especially given Israel's constant warning of civilians to leave areas they're going to attack. I think it's really telling that despite being so obviously justified, Israel has faced more scrutiny than almost any other country. Ukraine is currently locked into a similar war and has also killed Russian civilians.
> If you allow yourself to execute carpet bombings on civilians "for the good cause", don't be surprised when the enemy does the same.
I'm not surprised. That's why I think if we're going to bomb, it better be decisive and we better have damn good defenses. That's why I generally oppose war, but obviously Israel had no choice here really. Hamas is committed to their destruction and has shown able to breach defenses. They're still not gone.
Israel is vastly superior in a military sense, and could stop at any moment with no real negative consequences to itself.
The reason why Hamas was able to breach Israel's defenses on 7 October was because Israel had moved most of its troops into the West Bank, where it is busy repressing the Palestinian population, and because Israel ignored repeated warnings about an upcoming Hamas attack.
But stepping back, the reason this conflict exists in the first place is that Israel refuses to leave the occupied Palestinian territories. It is building illegal settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, and it holds Gaza under a crippling blockade that makes life miserable there. The Palestinians have been subjected to what may be the longest military occupation in modern history, and they will continue to resist until Israel gives them their freedom.
The Palestinian territories were (a) conquered by Israel after they won an unprovoked war and (b) only exist because Israel surrendered them partially. In no sense is it an occupation. Gaza, for example, was once part of Israel but it was only through Western interference that they were made to give it up, with now-known-to-be disastrous consequences.
The fact that they were conquered does not make them not occupied. In fact, it's exactly the opposite. In the post-WWII era, territory cannot be acquired through conquest.
> an unprovoked war
Israel initiated the 1967 war with a surprise attack on Egypt. They claimed it was preemptive, though whether Egypt was really going to attack Israel is very much in doubt. Israel itself played a major role in the tensions that led up to the war, and was constantly launching attacks into neighboring Arab territories.
> In no sense is it an occupation
Pretty much every expert in international law, international body, and country disagrees with you.
> Gaza, for example, was once part of Israel
Gaza has never been part of Israel. It wasn't even part of the biblical Israel (which has nothing to do with the modern state of Israel, anyways).
> only through Western interference that they were made to give it up
I can't even imagine what you're referencing here. No such thing happened.
