It would have been nice, but I don’t think felt they could have because Hamas wasn’t a signatory to the accords that bound Israel. They also didn’t for the Rohynga genocide either, so this is consistent with how they usually handle cases between state and non-state actors.
True that’s a good point, they did have some commentary on that subject with regard to Hamas’s hostages. Can’t call it an order to release them, as a non party, sort of a directive or firm suggestion.
With the Rohygna case, Myanmar was straight up strafing civilians with helicopters and burning whole villages to the ground, plus lynch mobs. Their claims of “valid military targets” by my memory were few and incredible, and no efforts to warn civilians.
I’m looking forward to reading Israeli’s 30-day status report.
It would have been nice, but I don’t think felt they could have because Hamas wasn’t a signatory to the accords that bound Israel. They also didn’t for the Rohynga genocide either, so this is consistent with how they usually handle cases between state and non-state actors.
True that’s a good point, they did have some commentary on that subject with regard to Hamas’s hostages. Can’t call it an order to release them, as a non party, sort of a directive or firm suggestion.
With the Rohygna case, Myanmar was straight up strafing civilians with helicopters and burning whole villages to the ground, plus lynch mobs. Their claims of “valid military targets” by my memory were few and incredible, and no efforts to warn civilians.
I’m looking forward to reading Israeli’s 30-day status report.