جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « اسرائیل » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

The most significant event of the 20th century is arguably the emergence of the Internet phenomenon, creating a direct communication network among people worldwide. This development has and will continue to bring about changes in the course of time that are incomparable to other events of this period, including world wars. Expanding the scope of virtual communication through social networks has become a key factor influencing political and legal developments both domestically and internationally. With the proliferation of social media in recent years, this emerging discourse has solidified its position and connected a global audience across borders. Events in the political and international arena are now intertwined with developments in the Internet realm and major global social networks like Instagram. One notable event in 2023 was the conflict between Gaza and Israel.
This study aims to explore how the Gaza conflict was portrayed in the legal and media landscapes through the Instagram accounts of BBC Persian and Iran International. The analysis covers posts from the start of Operation Al-Aqsa on October 7, 2023, to the end of that month. The hypothesis posited in this article considers the quantitative and qualitative dimensions of Instagram posts by BBC Persian and Iran International regarding the Gaza conflict. It suggests that these media outlets may represent Hamas as a terrorist group and portray Israel as justified in exercising "legitimate defense." Furthermore, the posts on Iran International's Instagram page not only depict Hamas as a terrorist group but also highlight the role of the resistance axis, particularly the Islamic Republic of Iran, in supporting Hamas and intervening territorially in the Gaza conflict.
To evaluate this hypothesis effectively, the study employs the media Representation theory by British sociologist Stuart Hall as a theoretical framework. Hall's theory emphasizes the interplay of Representation, Production, Consumption, Identity, and Regulation in the cultural cycle. Hall's concept of Representation explores the connections between Meaning, Language, and Culture. He categorizes Representation into Reflective, Constructive, and Intentional interpretations, highlighting strategies like Stereotyping and Naturalization. These strategies can lead to polarization and radical separation between different groups.
The study examines how the Representation of the Gaza conflict in October 2023 on the Instagram pages of BBC Persian and Iran International focused on legal metaphors. The analysis reveals that the main metaphors in these posts were tailored to influence the audience's mindset, aligning with the media's Representation Project. Out of a total of 3,833 posts on both media pages during the specified period, 1,825 posts (about 47.6%) were related to the Gaza conflict, while 1,428 posts (about 37.1%) were related to Iran. Analyzing these posts yielded key qualitative components and statistical data along specific conceptual axes.
The study's findings highlighted four main axes of Representation in the Instagram posts of both media outlets. Firstly, there was an emphasis on Hamas's high violence in violation of conflict laws, contrasting with humanitarian rights principles breached by repeated Israeli attacks and civilian casualties. Secondly, there was a focus on Israel's right to legitimate defense by portraying Hamas as a terrorist group. However, the analysis notes the need for proportional responses in line with international law, even in response to Hamas's military actions. The third axis addressed territorial intervention in the Gaza conflict by Iran and other supporting actors, a claim denied by Iranian officials and lacking substantial evidence according to some foreign officials like US President Joe Biden. Lastly, the Representation analysis highlighted the diminishing legal legitimacy of Hamas among the people of Gaza, with some opinions framing Hamas's actions within the legal rules of armed conflict against colonial domination and foreign occupation.

The incendiary attacks by the Hamas group from the Gaza Strip on October 7, 2023, towards the border areas of Israel, known as "Operation Al-Aqsa Storm," and Israel's robust military response to these attacks once again brought the issue of the occupied Palestinian territories to the forefront of the world's media. These attacks involved a combination of terrestrial, aerial, and naval assaults, with thousands of rockets launched towards Israel, resulting in significant damage to Israeli positions, including the loss of approximately 1400 lives and the capture of 240 individuals. In response to Hamas' operations, Israel officially declared war one day later, expressing its intent to engage in military conflict to eliminate Hamas and end their control over the Gaza Strip. Subsequently, Israel launched forceful and disproportionate offensives against the Gaza Strip, resulting in numerous civilian casualties. As of December 9, 2023, the casualties from these attacks have exceeded a staggering 17,700 tons, as reported by the Palestinian Ministry of Health. It is also important to note the extensive destruction of numerous buildings caused by these attacks.
From an international legal perspective, a significant aspect of the military operation on October 7, 2023, is the legality of the military actions undertaken by both Hamas and Israel against each other. Hamas has portrayed its military actions, particularly the October 7 operation, as a response to Israel's presence as an occupying force, aligning with the Palestinians' right to self-determination. On the other hand, Israel justifies its actions and attacks on the Gaza Strip as acts of self-defense. Both parties consider their actions lawful based on these grounds, which they view as crucial justifications. This article aims to explore, through a descriptive-analytical approach, the international law perspective on the use of force in the October 7 operation and the military actions of Hamas and Israel against each other.
According to the statement issued by the United Nations Secretary-General following the attack, the lack of opportunity for Palestinians to exercise their right to self-determination prompted Hamas to initiate military action to create a conducive environment for such exercise. Considering the founding charter of Hamas and statements by its officials against the Israeli occupation, the decision to conduct military operations on October 7 can be justified under international law as a manifestation of the right to self-determination. While some scholars, legal experts, and countries like Israel and the United States may view Hamas' actions as terrorism, Hamas' distinct approach towards the occupying force sets it apart from terrorist organizations. Hamas has demonstrated a level of influence and effective control over the population it represents, even if not all Palestinians endorse its methods and political objectives. However, exercising the right to self-determination does not grant a group the freedom to choose the type, method, and means of military operations. Therefore, the evaluation of Hamas' armed operations targeting Israel should consider the requirements outlined in Additional Protocol I to the four Geneva Conventions (1977).
Regarding Israel's justification for military operations in response to the October 7 attack, the claim of legitimate defense is contentious. While it could be argued that if Palestine were recognized as a state by Israel and non-state actors like Hamas were capable of armed attacks, Israel would have the right to defend itself under Article 51 of the Charter, the reality is that Israel does not recognize Palestine as a state. The prevalent view in international law, including the Security Council, is that self-defense is not applicable when an occupying power controls another entity. Even if Israel's self-defense justification were accepted, the conditions, including proportionality, for justifying severe international crimes are not met.
Israel's reliance on Article 43 of the Fourth Hague Convention for self-defense to establish order and security in occupied territories is also questionable. As Israel's presence in the territory is temporary and lacks sovereignty, this provision cannot be invoked when the occupier faces the people's struggle for self-determination. The actions of the occupier must adhere to international human rights and humanitarian law, which prioritize the right to self-determination as a fundamental human right.
The designation of Hamas as a terrorist group by Israel does not hold legal weight in international law. The determination of a group as a terrorist organization is the prerogative of the United Nations Security Council, not individual countries. Even if a group resorts to intimidating tactics, it may still be considered a liberation group, especially if it actively opposes foreign occupation.

The Al-Aqsa Storm operation on October 7, 2023, carried out by the military branch of Hamas, namely Al-Qassam, represents an unprecedented military action in the longstanding Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While Hamas's actions may be justified based on the occupation and the right to self-determination, Israel's response to this operation has been extensive, devastating, and unprecedented, to a degree that cannot be considered legitimate defense. The killing of thousands of innocent civilians, the use of prohibited weapons, the destruction of medical centers and hospitals, the collapse of the health system, the all-encompassing siege of Gaza, and the lack of access to vital goods such as food, water, and medicine have led to widespread famine. The destruction of homes and the forced displacement of the people of northern Gaza to other areas are among the blatant atrocities committed by Israel, which could be assessed as the actus reus element of the crime of genocide.
This article seeks to address whether the actus reus and mens rea elements of genocide (specific intent) have been met in light of recent Israeli military operations against the Palestinians (the people of Gaza). Through a descriptive and analytical examination of official reports, doctrine, and international jurisprudence, it concludes that, based on Israel's actions, especially the killing of members of the group, both the actus reus and mens rea elements of the crime of genocide in the Al-Aqsa Storm operation on October 7, 2023, have been fulfilled in a manner that establishes grounds for the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Consequently, the International Criminal Court could exercise its jurisdiction in this case.
The people of Gaza are an integral part of the Palestinian nation and government, united by a common and historic goal and struggle for liberation from occupation and colonization. Their shared nationality, ethnicity, and religion, as well as their continuity of goals, align them as a group protected under the Genocide Convention of 1948 and the Statute of the Court (6).
In addition to the deaths of Palestinians resulting from Israel's military actions, they face immediate risks of starvation, lack of water, and disease due to Israel's enduring blockade, inadequate aid distribution, and extensive restrictions on essential resources caused by the destruction of Gaza's infrastructure due to Israeli attacks. The coordinated and consistent statements of Israeli authorities, operationalized through military orders, serve as compelling evidence of intent.
The pattern of Israeli attacks and actions against the Palestinian population in Gaza since October 7, 2023, including collective punishment, forced disappearances, and the use of famine, water, electricity, and fuel cuts as tools of war, along with public statements by high-ranking Israeli government and military officials, collectively indicate Israel's genocidal intent. The behaviors, circumstances, and presumptions used by ad hoc international criminal tribunals to establish the specific intent of genocide align with the actions of Israeli authorities and can serve as a legal basis for potential proceedings against them.
Currently, the court's prosecutor, Karim Khan, has emphasized the importance of investigating the situation in Gaza, ensuring justice for the victims, and upholding the rule of law. While the prosecutor's actions have been articulated in a series of speeches and not as official actions, no preventive statement regarding Gaza has been issued by the court prosecutor. Member states of the Court, such as South Africa, Bangladesh, Djibouti, Bolivia, and the Comoros Islands, have recently referred the situation in Gaza to the Court, citing genocide as one of the concerns. However, due to the cautious approach of the prosecutor, an official decision regarding genocide does not appear imminent. Nonetheless, a provisional order issued by the International Court of Justice in the case of South Africa against Israel concerning the genocide of the people of Gaza, based on the Convention on the Prohibition and Punishment of Genocide, could potentially alter the court prosecutor's cautious stance.

The sovereignty of the Zionist Regime [Israel] over the Golan Heights - which was part of Syrian territory before it was occupied by Israel - was recognized by the President of the United States, in a proclamation on March 27, 2019. While this proclamation can be examined from many perspectives, this paper will attempt to consider its legality and consequences from an international-law viewpoint. Based on the findings of this research, which was carried out in a descriptive-analytical way, this action by the United States violates customary international law which prohibits recognition of situations arising from the use of force. It contradicts resolutions of the UN General Assembly and the Security Council, especially Resolutions 242 of 1967 and 497 of 1981. It also violates Syrian national sovereignty and territorial integrity. From the point of view of international law, not only this proclamation will fail to formalize the separation of the Golan from Syria, it will entail the international responsibility of the United States. As such, the US government is obliged to end the said illegal situation as soon as possible and remedy the Syrian government for this decision.

According to international law, Israel is one of the examples of violations of international rules and principles from the earliest years of its existence to the present day. Aggression, occupation, discrimination, war crimes, crimes against humanity and numerous other violations in the field of international human rights are examples of this. In the meantime, committing genocide in the occupied territories has not attracted much attention due to the slow, long, continuous process and sometimes the use of non-lethal tools. From the very beginning, Israel's approach has been to homogenize the population living in the occupied territories, and for this reason, it seeks ethnic cleansing by using lethal and non-lethal means; the ethnic cleansing must be carried out in any way possible, including, if necessary, with the intention of destroying the Palestinian group in part or in whole. In this article, while examining this method of ethnic cleansing in the form of genocide, we will discuss the facts that can be cited in this regard in order to raise the idea of constituting proceedings against Israel in the International Court of Justice and various related scenarios.

For many years, Israel has pursued a policy of targeted killings of Palestinian fighters. Since the beginning of the Aqsa Intifada in 2000, the targeted killings strategy has been clearly announced as one of Israeli public policy. The legal regime governing this strategy for those suspected of attacking is always one of the most challenging issues in the realm of international law. Given that the applicable ruling regime must first be investigated in the context of the operation in a situation of war or peace, in this article, according to legal arguments, it is emphasized that the Israeli confrontation with the Gaza Strip, Because of the Palestine's statehood and the start of a Gaza blockade as an act of aggression is an international armed conflict. As a result, the legal regime governing the Targeted killing of Israel in this area during armed conflicts is the International Humanitarian law and in relation to other occupied territories and in times of peace, is the Human rights regime.

Race and ethnicity establish the basis of Israel's political ideology. Their use of Jewish religion as a tool has provided the religious and ethnic racism for the Zionist regime. The Zionist regime has considered itself the only Jewish state in the world and has tried to set up a single identity on all its social and political gaps. The thinking has led to disunity in the international arena. It can be claimed that the roots of conflict in recent years are related to racism in Israel in the Middle East and other regions. The research attempts to answer the question of what is the root of racism in the the Zionist regime? In response to this question, this hypothesis will be tested. The racist ideology of the Zionist regime is based on the distortion of the Jewish and its attempts to dominate other nations.

Unique places and cultural properties which exist in Palestinian territories have been exposed to destruction alongside Israeliization policies. When cultural properties is destroyed, the relationship between the past, present and future, and in other word historical identity disappears. In such a situation, the conflict between the imperatives of war on the one hand and the preservation of cultural heritage for future generations will cause to countries face with conflicting goals. On the other hand and in the current situation, the fundamental question is raised about the extent to which the regime of international law is able to support and protect suitable cultural properties during occupation, colonialism and armed conflict, in view of the inherent duty of the UNESCO Organization for the Protection of properties and cultural heritages of the countries is becoming more and more important with the acceptance of Palestine membership in this organization. Therefore, the present article attempts to investigate the role of the UNESCO Organization and international law in avoiding or devastating effects of these measures in the Palestinian territories against the properties and cultural heritage and deliberate actions beyond the Israeli military's demand to destroy this heritage.

The thoughts of violence and terror by orders attributed to God are vastly used in the Holy books of the Jews. The racist thought, the sense of supremacy, love of predomination over the others and humiliation of them stem from their corrupt beliefs. These factors have facilitated the establishment of a global rule by them to use it for domination over human beings and for slavery, murder, terror and deception. The rule of Zionism emerged after a series of conferences by "Theodor Herzl" and the nation of the Jews was established by help of the UK in Palestinian lands. The land then became the state of the Jew or the chosen nation under the title of "the state of Israel" by surrounding the people of Palestine and buying their lands by force, murder and terror.

It is aimed in this article to answer this question as to why the relation between Iran and Turkey has been both conflictual and cooperative and this relation has never been very friendly and evolutionary. Findings in this research show that the Iran-Turkey relations within the years of 1989-2008 has been strongly influenced by three factors of ideology، Iran-Iraq war، the regional and international geopolitical changes. The impact of these factors on the Iran-turkey relationship is what to be considered in this article.

During the occupation of Palestinian territories by Jewish settlers, Palestinian civilians became the main victims of the conflicts and the targets of deportation from their home territory. Collective and individual deportations and transfer by the occupying power of its own nationals into the territory it had occupied have frequently been carried out in the Palestinian territories by Israel as an occupying power. In this paper, these actions have been scrutinized in relation to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, the United Nations Security Council and the General Assembly Resolutions, the Statute of the International Criminal Court and other international law rules and documents.

Strategic alliance of Israel with Iraq’s Kurds brings about the stability of national security strategyand Israel’s foreign policy in the Middle East to extend Israel’s presence in the region. In the wakeof new changes in Iraq’s Kurdistan and increasing the political, economic and social activities ofthe Iraq’s Kurds, Israel has sought to highlight its presence in the region. Hence, Israel has newlycommenced closed cooperation with Iraq’s Kurdistan through its direct presence in the region orby interfering Kurdistan’s economic and social affairs following the formation of a new unifiedstrategy in the Middle East based on «Environmental Unity» doctrine This issue gained someopposition from the regional countries like Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey about Israel and Kurdistanrelationships and consequently prevalence of the news about the presence and interference ofIsrael in the region; as in some cases the Turkish and Arab media in the region have been keen toexaggerate. This article aims to study the mutual strategic interests of Israel and Iraq’s Kurdistanthrough examining the background relationship and its new changes, specially Israel’s attemptsto make moves in the Iraq’s Kurdistan region. Then, by means of studying the outcomes of theirinteraction both inside the region and beyond, the article tries to provide solutions to maintain thenational benefits of I.R. Iran.

The recent conflict in Lebanon occurred between Hezbollah and Israel on the territory of a state that has not itself taken up arms, raises some distinct challenges for interpretation of international law related to jus ad bellum and jus in bello. In this context, the application of self defense pros or cons a non-state actor as well as nature of armed conflicts between Israel and an armed opposition group is problematic. This article, analyzes the SC resolution in the viewpoint of international law. The author believes that Israel's armed attack against Lebanon is an aggression as a flagrant violation of international customary and conventional law in particular, the UN Charter.