פורום קהלת Kohelet
5.1K posts
@KoheletForum
מכון מחקר ומעשה עצמאי הפועל מירושלים להבטחת עתידה של ישראל כמדינת הלאום של העם היהודי, לחיזוק הדמוקרטיה הייצוגית, הרחבת חירויות הפרט והעמקת עקרונות השוק החופשי
When does an oil refinery become a legitimate target? Our latest article dives deep into the high-stakes debate over the U.S. attacking Iranian oil fields. While some critics cry foul, citing the "Rule of Distinction", Avraham Marcus argues that State Practice—from the Civil War to the fight against ISIS—proves that "war-sustaining" economic targets are lawful objectives. Check out how the U.S. can balance this aggressive strategy with humanitarian concerns.
Many legal scholars were quick to assert the illegality of the war against Iran. Meanwhile, scholars and leading states recognize the necessity of acting quickly and decisively against the Islamic regime. The justifications for the ongoing operations against the Iranian regime break down into three core pillars: 1. Collective & Individual Self-Defense International law isn't a "suicide pact." Proponents argue that the UK, US, and Israel have an inherent right to dismantle a regime responsible for decades of state-sponsored terror, cyberattacks, and direct threats to democratic sovereignty. 2. Neutralizing an Existential Threat With uranium enrichment at 60% and a stated genocidal intent toward Israel, the regime’s nuclear program constitutes an "imminent threat." Legal experts argue that the Caroline Doctrine permits anticipatory action when a threat is instant and overwhelming. 3. The Moral Obligation to Prevent Beyond reactive defense, there is a legal and moral duty to prevent mass atrocities before they begin. A blind legalism should not condemn the Iranian people to further repression or the world to nuclear blackmail. If the law cannot restrain a genocidal theocracy, it is the interpretation of the law—not the action to stop it—that is broken. open.substack.com/pub/israellega…
