You're like a bad text-bot based on some really shitty Reddit sub.

I genuinely wouldn't be surprised to learn you're a teenager.

Your lies about having studied international law at "law school" are beyond ridiculous.

The way you speak of international law shows you know about as much about it as a 3-year old playing kitchen does about actual cooking.

Here, again.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule12

The 24th International Conference of the Red Cross in 1981 urged parties to armed conflicts in general “not to use methods and means of warfare that cannot be directed against specific military targets and whose effects cannot be limited”

Further evidence of the customary nature of the definition of indiscriminate attacks in both international and non-international armed conflicts can be found in the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice and of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. In its advisory opinion in the Nuclear Weapons case, the International Court of Justice stated that the prohibition of weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets constitutes an “intransgressible” principle of customary international law. This definition of indiscriminate attacks represents an implementation of the principle of distinction and of international humanitarian law in general. Rule 12(a) is an application of the prohibition on directing attacks against civilians (see Rule 1) and the prohibition on directing attacks against civilian objects (see Rule 7), which are applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts. Rule 12(b) is also an application of the prohibition on directing attacks against civilians or against civilian objects (see Rules 1 and 7). The prohibition of weapons which are by nature indiscriminate (see Rule 71), which is applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts, is based on the definition of indiscriminate attacks contained in Rule 12(b). Lastly, Rule 12(c) is based on the logical argument that means or methods of warfare whose effects cannot be limited as required by international humanitarian law should be prohibited.

Can bombs going off in market places and other civilian locations be limited in that way? NO.

Does Israel breaking the humanitarian laws they've agreed to as a member of the UN mean Israel just "gets abandoned". Hmm.. how does it work in your society when someone does a crime? Are they just... "abandoned"? Or is there perhaps some sort of a system that deals justice based on the severity of the crime? (Having to write this is exactly what I mean about how ridiculous it is of you to lie that you have any training in law, let alone "law school" :D)

https://theintercept.com/2024/09/19/israel-pager-walkie-talkie-attack-lebanon-war-crimes/

Israel keeps doing crimes against humanity and you keep defending them. Like a brownshirt from the 30's. Eww.