Lacking proof one way or another is not going to get you a conviction in any court. And you are correct; the connection between Giap and the Vietcong was certainly not enough to have him on the hook for Vietcong war crimes; even the connection between Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic was regarded by prosecution and defence alike as pushing the envelope.

There is no chain.

And Iran and Syria are connected to precisely none of them. They supplied the rockets (if they did; asking me if I doubt something isn’t proof and I daresay if you had anything stronger you’d provide it). But they didn’t pull the triggers. This is not difficult. It’s not a matter of a “missing link in the chain”. There is no chain. That’s “chain”, as in “chain of command”, as in “do you understand the concept of a chain of command, Dan?”.

And would you have granted anything like such benefit of the doubt to, say, Ariel Sharon?

Would you care to knock it on the head with the anti-Semitism baiting? If you want to accuse me of being bigoted or prejudiced, have the guts to do so in specific terms. You may now either apologise for that, or try to pretend that you didn’t mean it “that way” and look really weaselly.

you could get yourself fucking banned too laddie.

Not even in jest, do I take that kind of shit. Particularly not from someone who is in as poor a position as you to call other people apologists.

As so often before, you seem to be posting from a planet with which I am not familiar. It appears you think that states which supply weapons to tyrants, terrorists and other thugs are guilty of some crime. Morally speaking they are, but here we are discussing the law, which, as you may have heard, is a hass, a hidiot. Efforts are underway to criminalise such suppliers, as HRW reports:

[T]he individuals and states who provide the weapons used in massive human rights abuses have so far been let off the hook for their central role in facilitating these crimes.

Individual arms traffickers and the states who use their services reject out of hand the idea that they bear some responsibility for fueling abuses. Human rights organizations and their allies in the humanitarian, public health, development, conflict prevention, and disarmament communities have set out to prove otherwise.

Can you guess who is winning this contest between humanitarian NGOs and merchants of death? Read the report and see if you got it right.

Uh, Elliott, the other Daniel’s the one who attaches so much significance to the “human shields” aspect of Hezbollah’s activity. As far as I’m concerned, lobbing hundreds of rockets at Israeli towns, with no discernible goal other than causing a “large scale massacre” of civilians, is by far the worse crime, and very comparable to what the Phalangists did in Sabra and Shatila.

(I could make a sarcastic comment about how Daniel and the commenters seem so much more concerned about actions—Israeli and Lebanese—that jeopardize Lebanese lives, as opposed to Israeli lives. But the whole discussion of “war crimes” here has been far too incoherent for me to attribute malice, rather than mere clueless confusion, to its participants….)

Bearing in mind that the charge of Aggression doesn’t stick, what crime of Hezbollah’s have you in mind when you say Iran is an accessory?

(….Still, sometimes it’s awfully tempting….)

Basically no. An accessory or accomplice (I forget which, I am not a lawyer) has to be an accessory or accomplice to a specific act.

There are hundreds of such specific acts—each rocket launched at an Israeli city is one.

If there was much better evidence than there is that everything people say about the Syria/Iran/Hezbollah connection is true, then I can see a situation in which Israel would be within its rights to consider itself to be at war with Iran and Syria

What would constitute sufficient evidence, in your view? Do you doubt that Syria and Iran are supplying money, armaments and training to Hezbollah? (I believe they openly admit to doing so.) Do you doubt that Hezbollah is using those armaments to target Israeli cities? (Again, I believe they openly admit to doing so.) Where’s the missing link in the chain? And would you have granted anything like such benefit of the doubt to, say, Ariel Sharon?

Two reference items in the Fourth Geneva: 1) Article 4 section 2. “Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it.”
2) Article 5 section 1 “Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.”

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Article_4

The Geneva conventions are set up such that if both sides adhere to the conventions, the treaty is in full force. If one side does not, the number of applicable conventions is reduced.

Daniel: If a hospital is also used as an ammo dump, it becomes an ammo dump in the eyes of the convention. Fourth Geneva Convention Article 19 section 1 “The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit and after such warning has remained unheeded.”

Ray,

That’s a war crime? Are you sure?